Shippensburg University and WellSpan Health join forces to provide health care to students – Waynesboro Record Herald

FridayAug7,2020at10:45AM

SHIPPENSBURG Shippensburg University is pleased to announce a partnership with regional health care leader, WellSpan Health, to provide on-campus health care services to Shippensburg University students.

WellSpan will operate comprehensive primary care services from the universitys Etter Health Center.

"We are thrilled to be partnering with Shippensburg University to provide quality health services to their campus. Ensuring access to quality health care is our mission and by working together, we are doing just that for their students," said Niki Hinckle, Vice President of Operations for WellSpan Health in Adams, Cumberland and Franklin counties.

In addition to primary health care, students will benefit from WellSpans vast network of resources and expertise in wellness programming such as nutrition, physical fitness, and disease prevention. Services include point-of-care testing (including COVID-19 testing when necessary), medications, and immunizations. Students who cannot see staff in person have access to WellSpans telemedicine services.

The partnership strengthens the universitys commitment to wellness, which is supported by a campus-wide initiative launched last fall. "We are grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with our community partner, WellSpan, to deepen Shippensburg Universitys commitment to wellness. Now more than ever, I encourage students to make their wellness a priority and use the extensive services offered under this new partnership," said Shippensburg University President Laurie A. Carter.

The center is open to all Shippensburg University students and will operate during the regular semester from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and noon to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.

Visit link:

Shippensburg University and WellSpan Health join forces to provide health care to students - Waynesboro Record Herald

Trump says he’s working on health insurance executive order on pre-existing conditions – Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., August 7, 2020. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

BEDMINSTER, N.J. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Friday he would be working over the next couple of weeks on an executive order to require health insurers to cover pre-existing conditions.

Insurance companies were prohibited from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions under the Affordable Care Act passed under former President Barack Obama, known as Obamacare, which the Trump administration has tried to scrap.

Over the next two weeks Ill be pursuing a major executive order requiring health insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions for all customers, Trump said at a news conference at his golf property in Bedminster, New Jersey.

The Republican president, who is trailing Democratic candidate Joe Biden ahead of the Nov. 3, gave no details about his plan.

Trump has criticized the cost and coverage under Obamacare and has been promising since his 2016 campaign to replace it with a better plan.

His administration asked the Supreme Court in June to invalidate the Obamacare law.

Biden has condemned Trump for fighting to gut Obamacare, accusing him of threatening healthcare protections for millions of Americans in the midst of a raging pandemic.

Reporting by Jeff Mason; Writing by Mohammad Zargham; Editing by Leslie Adler and Sandra Maler

View post:

Trump says he's working on health insurance executive order on pre-existing conditions - Reuters

Trump signs executive order to expand telehealth, boost rural health care – FierceHealthcare

President Donald Trump issuedan executive order Monday to support healthcare in rural areas bypermanently expanding some telehealth services beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) officials said they plan to issue a proposed Physician Fee Schedule rule that will cement some regulatory flexibilities enacted during the public health emergency to reimburse for telehealth visits. Examples include emergency room visits, nurse consultations, and speech and occupational therapy, they said.

CMS' annual Physician Fee Schedule and Quality Payment Program updates Medicare payment rates.

These telehealth expansions would build on the work CMS has done during the public health emergency to more than double allowable telehealth services, greatly expanding access to high quality care, officials said.

RELATED:CMS: Upcoming Medicare payment rule to include permanent telehealth expansions

There has been a surge in the number of Medicare patients getting telemedicine services. Before the public health emergency, approximately 13,000 beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicare received telemedicine in a week. In the last week of April, nearly 1.7 million beneficiaries received telehealth services, CMS reported.

"Today Im taking action to ensure telehealth is here to stay," President Trump said during a press conference Monday evening. "I signed executive order to make some of our regulatory reforms permanent

During the pandemic, CMS has enabled Medicare to cover more than 135 services through telehealth.

A more sweeping extension of pandemic telehealth policies, including enabling patients to get telehealth visits at home, would requireCongressional action, CMS officials said.

To support rural health care, Trump also signed anexecutive order Mondayto directthe Department of Health and Human Services to set up a new voluntarypilot payment model through CMS' Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI).

That payment model would provide hospitals in rural communities a more consistent stream of Medicare payments based on delivering high-quality care, Trump said during a press conference Tuesday evening.

"Revenue for rural providers varies significantly month to month, making it difficult to stay in business.Many are having a difficult time," Trump said.

The order also directs the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services and the Federal Communications Commission to form a task force to focus on improving broadband infrastructure in rural communities to support telehealth.

During a briefing on Monday night, Trump also said he would release a new healthcare plan before the end of the month.

The rest is here:

Trump signs executive order to expand telehealth, boost rural health care - FierceHealthcare

Guest Column: The untold story of health care during the pandemic – Longview News-Journal

Over the past several months, COVID-19 has become a central focus in all our lives. We anxiously await the news each evening with hopes that the numbers of cases and hospitalizations are decreasing.

However, in Tyler, cases rose by sixty just last weekend. And as of early this week, 152 East Texas patients were receiving treatment for the coronavirus at Tyler hospitals. As we work together to flatten the curve, it seems the virus is affecting every decision we make.

But there is a bit of an untold story here, one that we, emergency healthcare providers, have been watching unfold since the pandemic began. Its a situation everyone must be aware of.

While our community has worked together to social distance and stay home, it has caused many to inadvertently avoid getting critical emergency health care. In fact, a recent national survey found nearly half of Americans have delayed medical care because of COVID-19 and 11% of those who delayed care saw worsened health conditions as a result. Similarly, emergency room volumes across the country decreased 21% in June 2020 compared to June 2019, which is better than April and May, when volumes were down 48% and 42% compared to levels a year earlier. In Tyler, we have seen a similar trend of emergency room visits and EMS requests decreasing significantly. As a result, people are literally dying at home simply because they are afraid to go to an emergency room.

In many cases, these consequences are entirely avoidable with proper, timely medical care. For example, if not addressed immediately, a treatable heart attack can turn into life-long heart disease, or worse death. Following the initial COVID-19 outbreak, New York City reported an 800% increase in at-home deaths due to fear of contracting the virus in hospitals. The thought of loss of life is troubling enough imagine knowing that loss could have been prevented with a short drive to the emergency room.

The most common, and life-threatening, delays in care are from patients with heart disease, stroke and sepsis. Any delay in seeking care for these conditions places the patients life at risk and can have massive ramifications for their future health. Stroke victims in particular have shown a dangerous trend of delaying care during the pandemic. New research shows patients are arriving to hospitals and treatment centers an average of 160 minutes later during COVID-19. When every second counts, this is a matter of life and death.

COVID-19 may have changed daily lives in many ways, but emergency rooms have stood, and remain, a constant pillar for communities to rely on. With patient safety always the top priority, emergency care providers are going above and beyond in new health protocols. Just some of the steps being taken include: rigorous sanitation protocols; stringent screening processes; mobile units for patient care and procedures; and separate areas for those suspected of having COVID-19. Nothing is more important than protecting patients lives. Emergency medicine physicians will continue to go the extra mile, taking every precaution possible to ensure a safe, reliable space for every patient who needs it.

Let me be clear: Despite what you may be hearing about overcrowding or high transmission risks in hospitals, there is absolutely no reason to delay care under any circumstances. If you are experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, weakness, tingling or blurred vision or any other symptom you feel is an emergency, please seek immediate care.

A health emergency is just that an emergency. It requires urgent, specialized care and there should be no question, hesitation or delay in getting that care. As much as we work together to battle the pandemic, we must also work together to ensure proper health care is not neglected.

We all want to be safe and do what is necessary to keep our fellow community members safe. However, that does not mean putting your life or a loved ones life at risk. You must trust we are here to provide the right care at the right time at the right place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Dr. Evans Smith is an emergency physician in Tyler and a member of the Texas College of Emergency Physicians.

View post:

Guest Column: The untold story of health care during the pandemic - Longview News-Journal

Congressman Chris Jacobs Wants to Take Away Your Healthcare – Artvoice

by William Fine

On July 30 of this year Lauren Underwood, (D-IL), introduced an amendment that would prevent the Department of Justice from using tax payer money appropriated for other purposes to pay to litigate against the Affordable Care Act. Congressman Chris Jacobs voted against this amendment. Mr. Jacobs wants to throw 23 million Americans off their health care during a pandemic. Mr. Jacobs wants millions more to lose their insurance for pre-existing conditions of which contracting Covid-19 infection is now one of them. Mr. Jacobs is just plain cruel.

Over 4.9 million citizens have contracted the infection and over 160,000 have died. One of our fellow citizens dies every 80 seconds. Refrigerator trucks are lining up outside of morgues to hold the overflow of our dead citizens. Our families and friends are hallowing the cemeteries across the land. The New York Times reported 7/14/20, The coronavirus pandemic stripped an estimated 5.4 million American worker of their health insurance between February and May. It is estimated that over 130 million more citizens with pre-existing conditions would lose there health care if Mr. Jacobs gets his way. Mr. Jacobs is just plain cruel.

Its time for a change. We need a new direction a new way. We need a rebirth of compassion and a clarity of purpose to benefit society. We need to roll away the stone of fear of helping our neighbors; roll away the stone of anger and wrathful health care. Roll away the stone of divisive and politicized health care. We need a new Congressman. Thank you

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:

Congressman Chris Jacobs Wants to Take Away Your Healthcare - Artvoice

Covid-19 ‘Has Laid Bare’ the Crisis of Healthcare in America – Common Dreams

Time flies. Hard to believe that it was twelve years ago that healthcare reform activist Wendell Potter left his job as head of corporate communications at Cigna and shortly after, loudly blew the whistle on the gross malpractices of the health insurance industry that had employed him.

Ever since, Potter has devoted virtually every minute to telling the story of his time as a top executive in a business dedicated to raking in massive profits at the expense of those suffering in medical need or just trying to stay healthy. He preaches the gospel of Medicare for All, single payer medical insurance for everyone at little or no cost. To that end, he has lectured around the country, written countless op-eds, authored two books, started the investigative journalism website Tarbell and various healthcare advocacy organizations, including Business Leaders for Healthcare Transformation.

"The advocacy community has made great strides over the past few years, but there's more that can be done to push back against the corporate propaganda that I used to be a part of." Wendell Potter, Center for Health & DemocracyNow he's the founder of a new non-profit group, the Center for Health and Democracy, because, he says, there's "not nearly enough awareness of the problems associated with money in politics and why money in politics is a real barrier for this country to move forward on meaningful healthcare reform. We will be drawing attention to how big corporations and associations are spending enormous sums of money to influence campaigns and public policy, both legislation and regulations, and help explain why that is blocking progressive reforms."

Potter has a strategy: "One of the things that is very important for us is to do a better job of winning the messaging battle. The advocacy community has made great strides over the past few years, but there's more that can be done to push back against the corporate propaganda that I used to be a part of

"There is a front group that is funded by industry money called the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future. The money comes from the insurance industry, but also from the pharmaceutical industry and big hospital chains. At one point they were spending more money in Iowa than the candidates were spending to try to scare people away from reform. And they were attacking not only Medicare for All, but any kind of meaningful reforms, including the public option. So we have our work cut out for us. We will probably never have the same amount of money that they have But I think we can make a difference."

Even though the special interest cash has been pouring in, Potter continued, "There is legislation in Congress that would create a Medicare for All system in this country And we saw during the primaries, despite all the spending that was done by the insurance industry and their front group, a majority of people who voted in the Democratic primary in every single state, including my home state of Tennessee and other southern states, said that they supported Medicare for All. And this was after they were told that Medicare for All would replace Medicare, would replace private insurance companies."

Potter's new Center for Health and Democracy comes at a time when the nation is ravaged by COVID-19, a crashed economy, vast unemployment and the prospect of a November election that already is the most contentious of modern times, one in which healthcare reform is a critical issue to all Americans.

"The COVID pandemic has really laid bare so many of the problems that we have in this country when it comes to our healthcare system," he said. "It also has shown just how greedy the insurance industry is and how it's able to profiteer. Over the first six months of this year, the six largest, for-profit health insurance companies have reported profits that exceeded Wall Street's expectations.

"United Healthcare, for example, reported second quarter earnings that were the most they've ever made over three months in their history. So they've been making enormous profits. And one of the reasons is because they've spent far less on medical claims. That's because so many elective procedures were canceled. So they've been taking in money. Their membership has been declining, but even with those declines in membership, they've still been able to take in record revenues and convert those revenues to record profits.

"We've also seen laid bare the absurdity of our employer-based healthcare system. A lot of the candidates during the primary talked a great deal about how much Americans valued the employer-based healthcare system Well, what we've seen made abundantly clear in the pandemic is that Americans have been losing their jobs by the millions, more than 40 million people have applied for unemployment compensation. And a lot of those people have also lost their health insurance. So we've lost a great deal of ground that we gained when the Affordable Care Act was passed.

"People are dying unnecessarily in this country."

Potter said that he's "waiting with bated breath" for the healthcare reform Donald Trump keeps promising but never delivers. We spoke just before Trump announced that he would issue an executive order requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions something that already exists under Obamacare. As for Joe Biden, "He has not embraced Medicare for All, which is regrettable. But I do think that there will be enormous pressure, if there is a Biden administration, on the president and Congress to move forward with reforms that go far beyond the Affordable Care Act

"I think there is absolutely evidence that his thinking is evolving and has shifted some. His first indication of that was his willingness to at least begin by lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to age 60, which is a step in the right direction. I think there are other things that will be proposed that will put us on a path toward Medicare for All And I think we'll continue to see Joe Biden shifting more, maybe not during the campaign, because I think he's going to be very cautious about what he says out of fear of maybe alienating some perspective voters. But I do think that after the election, that there will be even greater pressure on him and his transition team and his administration to move forward much more rapidly than he probably would have imagined he would have."

But, Wendell Potter added, if Trump gets reelected, "Lord The one thing that we know about Trump is that he is the biggest friend of the plutocrats, and that would include the people who run the insurance companies and who invest in them. So I think that our chances of having anything meaningful in a second Trump administration are not very great. And I hope people will understand that as they're voting, that if you continue to have Trump in the White House nothing meaningful is going to happen. And they very possibly could make things worse. Much worse."

***

A transcript of our conversation follows, edited for length and clarity. There's more about the Center for Health and Democracy, Trump, Biden, profiteering and the power of the health insurance lobby, how the insurance industry uses "choice" as a word "to bamboozle the public into thinking that what we value most is having a choice of health insurer," COVID and Canadian healthcare, plus whether the healthcare business will seek even more ways to make money when a COVID vaccine becomes available. Full disclosure: I first met Wendell Potter when I was part of the team at Bill Moyers Journal that in 2009 presented his accusations and secret documents revealing healthcare industry attempts to denigrate and intimidate reform activists.

Wendell, you've launched a new organization, the Center for Health and Democracy. Congratulations. What is the purpose of this group?

This group brings together the work that I've done over the past 12 years after I left my job at Cigna and became a very vocal critic of the health insurance industry. I've also written a great deal, and spoken a great deal, about the problems of money in politics. We've talked about this, Michael, in the past, you know that I coauthored with Nick Penniman of Issue One, Nation on the Take: How Big Money Corrupts Our Democracy and What We Can Do About It. And this center, the Center for Health and Democracy, brings all that work together.

One of the things that I've observed in working with a lot of advocates for healthcare reform, is that there's not nearly enough awareness of the problems associated with money in politics and why money in politics is a real barrier for this country to move forward on meaningful healthcare reform. We will be drawing attention to how big corporations and associations are spending enormous sums of money to influence campaigns and public policy, both legislation and regulations, and help explain why that is blocking progressive reforms.

What's the plan in terms of getting your message across?

We'll be using a lot of tools and messaging techniques, certainly social media. I have a pretty robust Twitter following, and we'll be using that platform as well as Facebook and other social media platforms. We have a very robust mailing list as well. Grass roots email list with more than 100,000 names, and that's growing. And working with traditional media, of course. As you probably know, I spent many years myself in the media. I'm a former newspaper reporter, but also in my corporate jobs worked with the media and know, certainly, the importance of working with traditional media, helping reporters to understand the issues in ways they really haven't considered before, just informing them. So we'll be using multiple media to do this work or to get our messaging across. One of the things that is very important for us is to do a better job of winning the messaging battle. The advocacy community has made great strides over the past few years, but there's more that can be done to push back against the corporate propaganda that I used to be a part of.

It's hard to believe that it's been 12 years.

It is hard to believe. I left Cigna in May of 2008. I took time off to decide what I wanted to do. It was actually in June of 2009 that I testified before Congress, after working behind the scenes for several months with advocates to help advocates understand how the insurance industry really works and how their propaganda machine works. And, as you recall, the Bill Moyers Journal sent a crew to Washington to cover my first testimony on June 24th, 2009. And soon after that was the first major report based on that and the work that I had started doing. So I owe a great deal of debt to Bill Moyers and you all who were a part of that.

I gathered from reading your prospectus that one of the things you really want to talk about, as you have in the past, is the role of the health insurance special interests working behind the scenes of American politics, especially this year.

That's right. The special interests have spent enormous sums of money to influence the primary elections earlier this year. There is a front group that is funded by industry money called the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future. The money comes from the insurance industry, but also from the pharmaceutical industry and big hospital chains. At one point they were spending more money in Iowa than the candidates were spending to try to scare people away from reform. And they were attacking not only Medicare for All, but any kind of meaningful reforms, including the public option. So we have our work cut out for us. We will probably never have the same amount of money that they have. And in fact, I'm pretty certain of that. But I think we can make a difference.

The work we will do will be to pull the curtains back, to expose on an ongoing basis how insurers in particular are spending our money, the money that we pay in premium, a significant part of it is skimmed off to pay for their propaganda campaigns and to pay for lobbyists in Washington and in state capitals all across the country.

Are these interests the reason why some of the candidates have seemed to be so far behind [the curve of] the public desire for single payer, for Medicare for All?

I think it absolutely is the reason why we haven't seen even Democrats in Congress and presidential candidates reflect the same point of view that the American public has on healthcare reform. The insurance industry that I know so well and the way they spend money to influence campaigns In my old job, my team was responsible for doling out money from the Cigna Political Action Committee, and we would send money to Democrats as well as to Republicans. And some cases, the Democrats got more money than Republicans, depends on which way the political winds were blowing.

But we've seen, for example, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, but certainly the House, which is now been under Democratic control for some time, there is legislation that would create a Medicare for All system in this country. More than half of the Democratic Caucus has signed on as co-sponsors, there had been some hearings, but the legislation has not advanced out of committee for a floor vote. So that's telling.

And we saw during the primaries, despite all the spending that was done by the insurance industry and their front group, a majority of people who voted in the Democratic primary in every single state, including my home state of Tennessee and other southern states, said that they supported Medicare for All. And this was after they were told that Medicare for All would replace Medicare, would replace private insurance companies. So in every single state, a majority of those who were participating in the entrance and exit polls said they supported Medicare for All. Yet we saw that a lot of the Democratic candidates for president, they just weren't paying attention. And one of the reasons they weren't paying attention, in my view, is because of all the money that these special interests give to candidates at all levels.

You know, when I read your prospectus, one of the goals that's in that document is to expose how the current system harms Americans by overcharging them. And I think one of the insurance industry fallacies that has caused a lot of this harm is the notion of consumer choice.

That's right.

That we don't want to disturb the freedom of Americans to choose their own insurance plan or their doctors.

That's exactly right. In fact, I wrote an op-ed for The New York Times earlier this year on that very thing, about how the insurance industry and its allies have used that word "choice" to bamboozle the public into thinking that what we value most is having a choice of health insurer. It's bamboozling the public in many different ways. One, most of us, if you think about this, certainly those of us who get coverage through the workplace, we don't have a choice of health insurance company. That choice is made by our employer. Even if you get coverage through the Obamacare exchanges, in many cases there's a very limited choice depending on where you live. So we don't have as much choice as they would like you to think we have. But the choice that really matters most to Americans is not choice of health insurance companies. It is choice of healthcare providers, doctors, and hospitals, and other providers.

And increasingly, insurance companies have been taking those choices away from us through their limited networks. And those networks are getting skinnier and skinnier every year. And also insurance companies in the middle of a year, a policy year for someone, can and often will remove doctors and hospitals from their provider networks. So we don't have the choice that they would like us to believe. And they're trying to obscure the choice that matters most to us, which is a choice of healthcare providers. And by the way, the Medicare program doesn't have these limited networks. If you are enrolled in Medicare, you have unlimited choice of providers who participate in the Medicare program. And that is the vast majority of all doctors and hospitals in this country.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

What further has the COVID pandemic shown you about the state of healthcare and health insurance in the country?

The COVID pandemic has really laid bare so many of the problems that we have in this country when it comes to our healthcare system. It also has shown just how greedy the insurance industry is and how it's able to profiteer. Over the first six months of this year, the six largest, for-profit health insurance companies, and they are Anthem, Aetna, Cigna, Centene, United Healthcare, and Humana, have reported profits that exceeded Wall Street's expectations.

United, for example, reported second quarter earnings that were the most they've ever made over three months in their history. So they've been making enormous profits. And one of the reasons is because they've spent far less on medical claims. That's because so many elective procedures were canceled. So they've been taking in money. Their membership has been declining, but even with those declines in membership, they've still been able to take in record revenues and convert those revenues to record profits.

We've also seen laid bare the absurdity of our employer-based healthcare system. A lot of the candidates during the primary talked a great deal about how much Americans valued the employer-based healthcare system. And how many times did we hear that 150 or 160 million Americans get their coverage through their workplace? -- they didn't want to lose that. Well, what we've seen made abundantly clear in the pandemic is that Americans have been losing their jobs by the millions, more than 40 million people have applied for unemployment compensation. And a lot of those people who've lost their jobs, millions have also lost their health insurance. So we've lost ground, a great deal of ground that we gained when the Affordable Care Act was passed.

So why should we continue on with a healthcare system in which our healthcare access is tied to having a job and an employer that offers benefits? And increasingly over the years, employers have been throwing in the towel. They can't continue to offer benefits. So that's one thing.

We're seeing some of the other problems caused by the insurance industry in particular. They also are able to make money through very aggressive prior authorization requirements, which make it necessary for doctors to ask for permission or approval before they can proceed with a treatment or prescribe certain medication. So increasingly, Americans are not getting the care that they need because someone in the insurance company is saying no. Even if it's a covered benefit, it's their legal right to say, "We're not going to cover that" for whatever reason.

You may recall that during the debate on what became the Affordable Care Act, Sarah Palin and some others said that we should worry because the government would be setting up "death panels." Well, there was never anything in the legislation that would have done that. But that obscured something else that I talked about then, but it's also becomes very apparent, insurance companies operate death panels, and they do this in one way through these prior authorization requirements. In many cases, people are not getting the care that could save their lives. And that's just because the insurance industry says no to a doctor who, in many cases, is pleading for approval for coverage, for something the patient urgently needs.

So you're saying that despite the enormity of this current crisis, and despite the press releases that have gone out from the insurers about how beneficial they're being and how much they're trying to help people, that there's still a lot of predatory behavior taking place?

Oh, there's enormous predatory behavior. And it's interesting, if you look at the press releases that these companies have put out for their quarterly earnings this year, they always spend paragraph after paragraph, bullet point after bullet point at the top of their press releases, talking about how good they are, how they are spending money or accelerating payments to doctors and hospitals. It's just, again, an effort to hide their embarrassment of riches, or at least bury it under many paragraphs of patting themselves on the back.

And when you really look at what they're doing, the money that they presumably are spending or contributing to nonprofit organizations throughout the country is minuscule, when you look at it as a percentage of the profits they're making, and certainly as a percentage of the revenues they're hauling in.

So you caused a little bit of a stir on Twitter earlier when you said that Canada's response has been better than ours because of the differences in our healthcare systems. Are people dying unnecessarily?

People are dying unnecessarily in this country. And I also have an op-ed in theWashington Post now along those same lines, pointing out just how badly we've done in this pandemic, how poorly prepared we were and how, because of our multi-payer system in particular, we've done such a poor job and far worse than Canada has done in so many different ways, in anticipating and getting ready for the pandemic, making sure that... In Canada, for example, you don't have to worry at all about the cost of the test or treatment. There are no out of pocket requirements for the care that you need in Canada.

One deterrent in this country is the fact that people know that they're going to be on the hook for sometimes thousands of dollars if they get the care that they need. So we've done such a poor job, not only compared to Canada, but to every other developed country in the world when it comes to being ready to handle this pandemic. And our numbers continue to be worse than any other country in the world. Other countries have seen a flattening and actually a decline in the number of cases and deaths, when we're seeing an acceleration of it, certainly in a few states in this country.

So are you eagerly awaiting Donald Trump's healthcare plan at the end of the month?

Oh, I just can't believe that we haven't seen it yet. Weren't we already supposed to have it? It was two weeks that he was going to be unveiling it and that was about a month ago when he said that, or at least more than two weeks.

Yeah. I'm waiting with bated breath and I'm sure it's going to be beautiful as we've been promised. And we were promised that when he was a candidate in 2016. And the Republicans kept talking about how great their plan was going to be that would replace the Affordable Care Act, and we just haven't seen it materialize. With the exception of a bill that almost got passed that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and would have just been catastrophic for the country. So thank goodness that John McCain stepped up and kept that from being enacted. But the thing is, Republicans, including Donald Trump, cannot come up with a healthcare plan that does what they say, which is to protect people with preexisting conditions and bring down the cost of health insurance and healthcare. They just don't have a plan. Yeah, I can't wait to see the president's plan.

What do you think happens after the election? I mean, we know the Republicans haven't really made it much of a priority other than, as you say, to repeal Obamacare. But what do you think? Do you have any confidence that Biden will be able to get anything taken care of?

I think Biden will really make a push to move forward. He talks about improving the ACA and there's merit to that. He has not embraced Medicare for All, which is regrettable. But I do think that if there is a Biden administration there will be enormous pressure on the president and Congress to move forward with reforms that go far beyond the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act for all the good that it's done, it has done good, it's brought a lot of people into coverage, but again, we're seeing a lot of those people go back into the ranks of the uninsured, but it left the insurance industry largely in control of the system and they've been able to profiteer. Their profits have been enormous since the Affordable Care Act was passed. So we need to do a lot to reduce the power and influence or the ability of the insurance industry to profiteer if they hang around.

He has supported a public option. We, as an organization, will be watching that very closely and weighing in, it has to be a very good public option that doesn't mimic just the private plans that are available. There will be great pressure on the next president, certainly if it's Joe Biden, to do something about out of pocket costs and about some of these other things that we've been talking about that people are just fed up with. And there will be, I think, a renewed interest in Medicare for All, because people are aware of the profiteering of the insurance industry, and they're seeing they, more than ever, are disadvantaged financially and in ways that harm their health, because of the current system we have. And that's largely because we have private insurance companies running our healthcare system.

So you think that the pandemic has shifted Biden closer to single payer at this point?

I think there is absolutely evidence that his thinking is evolving and has shifted some. His first indication of that was his willingness to at least begin by lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to age 60, which is a step in the right direction. I think there are other things that will be proposed that will put us on a path toward Medicare for All, if it's not done with a single piece of legislation, like Bernie Sanders has sponsored and Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell have sponsored in the House. There are ways to get there other than through that one piece of legislation that just needs to be done sooner rather than later.

But I do think there will be enormous pressure. And I think we'll continue to see Joe Biden shifting more, maybe not during the campaign, because I think he's going to be very cautious about what he says out of fear of maybe alienating some perspective voters. But I do think that after the election, that there will be even greater pressure on him and his transition team and his administration to move forward much more rapidly than he probably would have imagined he would have.

And if Trump gets reelected?

If Trump gets reelected... Lord. I still think there will be an effort to try to move forward. The one thing that we know about Trump is that he is the biggest friend of the plutocrats, and that would include the people who run the insurance companies and who invest in them. So I think that our chances of having anything meaningful in a second Trump administration are not very great. And I hope people will understand that as they're voting, that if you continue to have Trump in the White House and Democrats in control of the Senate, nothing meaningful is going to happen. And they very possibly could make things way worse. Much worse.

What about in terms of a vaccine? There's obviously pressure for the vaccine to be made available free to everyone, but I get the feeling that the insurance companies are trying to figure out ways to get a piece of that action, which will be massive.

Yes. And the insurance industry will be more controlled than they should be it seems in who gets those vaccines and who gets them first. I guess the government, they have the ability to play some role. But I'll say it again, insurance companies have a lot of control over the access to healthcare that we have. And I don't trust them a minute to do the right thing. And they certainly will want to make sure that they will, at the very least, not lose money. And they will be trying to figure out how they can make money. The one thing I've said that these companies know how to do best is to make money. And we've certainly seen that over the years.

So who are some of the people you've got involved in this new Center for Health and Democracy?

I've got a good team of people. One of the things that we're going to be doing is our effort to win the messaging battle. We've got a small, but very capable, communications team of communications experts who are expert at both social media and traditional media. We are bringing in people who've had a good track record of establishing and operating nonprofits and bringing in the donations that are necessary for a nonprofit to succeed. We have substantial financial commitments already. And a lot of the money that we are getting is coming from small donations, mainly from the email program that we have, which has more than 100,000 names now, and that program is growing.

We also will be working in partnership with other organizations that are involved in one way or another with advancing healthcare reform and addressing the problems associated with money in politics, like Issue One, and represent some other organizations that are working and have been working to reform our current political system.

You have several different affiliations now that you've helped create. And is it sort of a synergistic thing where each of them is better because of the others?

Yeah, I think there is a synergistic relationship among the organizations that I've helped create and lead. Another organization that is ongoing and that I served as president of is called Business Leaders for Healthcare Transformation. And that is an organization that represents more than 3,000 businesses across the country of all sizes that support Medicare for All, or moving toward that, and that continues. Also, more than three years ago now, launched Tarbell, which is a nonprofit news organization that's ongoing, that does important investigative work. And that will continue to look at the intersection of healthcare and money and politics and do important investigative reporting on that.

Anything you want to add?

I guess I would add that I hope that people would visit our website, CenterforHealthandDemocracy.org, reach out and join our e-mail list to stay updated on the work that we do.

Wendell Potter, thank you.

Read the original post:

Covid-19 'Has Laid Bare' the Crisis of Healthcare in America - Common Dreams

Bernie Sanders wants to tax billionaires’ pandemic gains to fund health care – Yahoo Finance

A new bill introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Ed Markey (D-MA) would implement a one-time 60% tax on billionaires to cover the health care costs of every American for a year.

The Make Billionaires Pay Act would tax the $731 billion in wealth accumulated by the richest 0.001% of America between March 18 through August 5. This would apply towards 467 individuals.

"The legislation I am introducing today will tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this extraordinary crisis to guarantee healthcare as a right to all for an entire year, Sen. Sanders said in a statement. "At a time of enormous economic pain and suffering, we have a fundamental choice to make. We can continue to allow the very rich to get much richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer. Or we can tax the winnings a handful of billionaires made during the pandemic to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans.

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders arrives to speak at a rally at the Drake University Olmsted Center in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., February 3, 2020. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

The money generated from this 60% tax would go towards covering out-of-pocket expenses for the uninsured and underinsured for one year.

The top five richest Americans Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos, Microsoft (MSFT) Founder Bill Gates, Facebook (FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK.B) CEO Warren Buffett, and Oracle (ORCL) Founder Larry Ellison would pay a combined $87.1 billion under the bill. In total, the tax would generate over $421.6 billion.

In my view, Sanders added, it is time for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class who are hurting like they have never hurt before, not the billionaire class who are doing phenomenally well and have never had it so good."

A health care worker gives a nasal swab to a person to do a self administered test at the new federally funded COVID-19 testing site at the Miami-Dade County Auditorium on July 23, 2020 in Miami. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The Make Billionaires Pay Act would cover all medical bills, including prescription drugs and coronavirus-related expenses, over the next 12 months with the tax staying in effect until January 1, 2021.

Instead of more tax breaks for the rich while more Americans die because they cannot afford to go to a doctor, let us expand Medicare and save lives by demanding that billionaires pay their fair share of taxes, Sanders said.

The popular senator also lambasted the fact that CEOs like Bezos and Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk saw their net worth surge during the pandemic Bezos wealth increased by 63% while Musks nearly tripled.

Jeff Bezos would pay over $42 billion. (Photo by Elif Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

In that same period of time, over 5 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health care. And although President Trump pledged to reimburse hospitals for any coronavirus-related expenses for the uninsured, that still leaves non-coronavirus expenditures that could add up.

Story continues

During this unprecedented economic and public health crisis, millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to put food on the table while billionaires are getting even wealthier, Gillibrand said in a statement. Requiring billionaires to pay their fair share will help support workers and families dealing with job losses, food insecurity, housing instability and health care. Not only is this a common-sense proposal, but its a moral one and Congress should be doing all we can to assist Americans struggling right now.

This isnt the first wealth tax thats been floated through Congress: Both Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) frequently targeted the ultra wealthy throughout their presidential campaigns and each proposed their own kind of wealth tax that would go towards funding Medicare for all.

Adriana is a reporter and editor covering politics and health care policy for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter@adrianambells.

READ MORE:

Follow Yahoo Finance onTwitter,Facebook,Instagram,Flipboard,SmartNews,LinkedIn,YouTube, andreddit.

See more here:

Bernie Sanders wants to tax billionaires' pandemic gains to fund health care - Yahoo Finance

Bringing price relief and accountability to healthcare – The Durango Herald

Its been a long, winding road since January 2018 when Local First received impassioned feedback at our annual meeting that the price of healthcare, and health insurance premiums in particular, were crippling the business community.

As we began to explore an issue for which we had a limited track record, the importance of the Look Local lens in the complex world of healthcare became obvious.

Much like the challenges facing our downtown retail shops, our healthcare system and its local practitioners are threatened by the national trend toward consolidation of providers, which research shows leads to higher prices without measurably improving the quality of care. The corporatization and consolidation of healthcare typically results in fewer independent local healthcare providers in an increasingly complex system that lacks transparency and equity. Decisions are made in far-away corporate headquarters, making it harder to understand how to have a voice in decision-making. To tackle this trend, Local First teamed up with the local, independent healthcare practitioners of The Durango Network to listen to the community and explore options to support local, independent healthcare in the La Plata County region including Montezuma, Dolores and San Juan counties.

Thanks to initial support from the Rocky Mountain Health Foundation, we received a grant that provided critical capacity to hold focus groups with the business community to tackle local healthcare. From these discussions in 2019 came a community needs assessment recommending that we: 1) increase health literacy in the La Plata County region, and 2) develop a cooperative, local healthcare solution that increases access to care while also reducing insurance premiums. This is when we found Peak Health Alliance and their innovative healthcare cooperative hailing from the mountains of Summit County, Colorado. Similar to an agricultural cooperative, Peak Health Alliance uses the power of community purchasing to bring down the cost of healthcare while bringing the voice of the community back into the healthcare system to support transparency. The ultimate goal of this cooperative, which is officially licensed by the Colorado Division of Insurance, is to provide affordable, high-quality and locally responsive health insurance products in the marketplace. Each dollar our community saves on health insurance is a dollar that can be placed back into the economy on local produce, mortgage payments, and the other costs that make the La Plata County region a great, but expensive place to reside.

Fast forward to 2020, and we are pleased to announce that our goal of offering this type of plan in the marketplace by January 2021 is on track and heading your way - whether you are a business owner or an individual looking for affordable, local healthcare. With the incredible support and expertise of Peak Health Alliance, we have chosen to work with Bright Health who already offers coverage to Peak members in the northern part of our state. Bright Health will be new to our region for 2021, and we are pleased that our efforts appear to have driven greater marketplace diversity and interest in this remote corner of Colorado.

As we prepare for health insurance plans being available in January 2021, with rates and plan designs available this fall, we are now talking with the community about the details of engaging with us. The Southwest Health Alliance is the local decision-making arm of the Peak Health Alliance. As such, we are communicating now with local brokers to ensure they are fully equipped with information regarding the Southwest Health Alliance and Bright Health. Brokers will continue to assist both individuals and employer groups with their healthcare decision-making. Simultaneously, we are reaching out to 5,000 individuals in the business community that expressed interest in the Southwest Health Alliance plan. We are also speaking to the public at large about unique offerings such as $0 co-pays for mental health visits.

Along the way, we all get to uphold our values of transparency, choice, local self-reliance, and evidence-based decision-making. We are pleased that the Southwest Health Alliance insurance product will offer a choice of local providers as well as enhanced primary care and mental health benefits, while delivering cost-savings through partnerships with Centura (owner of Mercy Regional Medical Center), Animas Surgical Hospital, and local healthcare providers. We are still hopeful that Southwest Health System in Cortez will agree to join the Bright Health network so that Montezuma County residents can enjoy unfettered access to local care in their community.

You can find out who sits on the Steering Committee of the Southwest Health Alliance, the incredible support we have received from local governments and corporate sponsors, and how you can engage by visiting the Local First Foundation website. Sign-up for our newsletter by emailing me so that you can attend one of our many webinars to learn more about the Southwest Health Alliance before it hits the marketplace in 2021.

Get involved. The power of a cooperative is in its numbers, so our community needs to rise to the occasion, become informed, and learn what the Southwest Health Alliance has to offer. That is not only a way to engage in local healthcare and drive decisions locally, but also a way to reduce your out-of-pocket expense for healthcare. With the Southwest Health Alliance, you can now look local first in healthcare for the first time-ever. We are pleased to be offering this unique product to the community and look forward to continuing the dialogue in the upcoming months.

Monique DiGiorgio is the director of Local First and the Local First Foundation in Durango. Contact her at director@local-first.org.

Follow this link:

Bringing price relief and accountability to healthcare - The Durango Herald

Health Care Hero from Middletown: COVID-19 intimidating because there are still so many unknowns – Hamilton Journal News

ExploreCoronavirus: Face masks required for K-12 students in school buildings

What inspired you to get into health care? I was an state tested nursing assistant for 10 years, which allowed me to work side by side with the residents and nurses. I realized one day that I wanted to give more to the ones I was caring for. I decide with a good friend that we would attend nursing school together. As a team we applied for school and completed our 10-month program, then we sat for our LPN boards together. We successful completed. So, I inspired myself to get into health care along with a good friend.

Whats a memorable experience youve had in health care? The most memorable experience in my career is building strong relationships with the residents and families that I care for on a daily basis.

What do you want readers to know about your job right now: The things that make me extremely happy as a nurse are knowing I was able to help my residents, whether it was with giving them pain medication, helping them to the bathroom, or assist them to walk after a meal, or that I made the call to the doctor to inform him/her of a condition change, and to obtain new orders that would benefit my resident. I love leaving my residents better than he/she was when I entered the room. I always want to leave my residents with the feeling they are important, and that I heard them and responded with kindness and dignity.

COVID-19 is intimidating because there are still so many unknowns. I personally have not had to care for a patient with it; however, I know nurses who have and are still caring for those patients. We are all in this together, and together we will get through this rough time, and things will slowly get back to normal. Some call us heroes, but honestly, we are doing what nurses have always done: caring for those in need.

Read the rest here:

Health Care Hero from Middletown: COVID-19 intimidating because there are still so many unknowns - Hamilton Journal News

Teachers, health care workers among many in Triangle updating wills amid COVID-19 – CBS17.com

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) With no end in sight, the coronavirus pandemic is causing people to plan for worst case scenarios causing people to think about the future more than ever before.

Estate planning businesses across the Triangle are seeing an increase in people wanting to write their wills, including essential workers like health care workers and teachers.

RELATED: Full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

I have had a client or two that have been educators and administrators. I expect even more as time goes on and schools open back up, said Chad Thornton, the sole practitioner of the Thornton Law Firm in Raleigh.

Parents of college students who are headed to campuses filled with thousands of their peers are also looking to get their childrens affairs in order.

Next week, Im seeing three of my clients children for this purpose before they go to school. Having HIPPA authorizationsand healthcare power of attorney for their kids before we send them off has really, well theres been an uptick, saidShirley M. Diefenbach, attorney and partner with Walker Lambe Law firm in Durham.

Both attorneys say important things to consider when drafting a will include designating an executor or person to oversee an estate, deciding what happens with property and pets, and choosing beneficiaries.

You never know when you might catch COVID or might not be able to speak with people. Its important for peace of mind to know that you have someone to make those decisions. The sooner the better, said Thornton.

Thornton Law Firm in Raleigh offers house visits for appointments and consultations, they can be reached at thorntonlegal.com or 919-740-1264.

Walker Lambe Law Firm in Durham offers free consultations and virtual appointments, they can be reached at walkerlambe.com or 919-493-8411.

More headlines from CBS17.com:

Go here to read the rest:

Teachers, health care workers among many in Triangle updating wills amid COVID-19 - CBS17.com

MedWatch Today: Healthcare Hero, Cardiology Medical Imaging Team – YourCentralValley.com

This week, we honor a team of Healthcare Heroes. The staff that makes up the Cardiac Medical Imaging Team have been put to the test during this Coronavirus pandemic. They help emergency doctors and nurses provide excellent care to COVID-19 positive patients every day.

The emergency department at Community Regional Medical Center is one of the busiest in the state, and has gotten even busier with the Coronavirus crisis. Alternative care sites have been set up to accommodate the influx of patients.

Cheryl Sutton is the manager of the Cardiac Medical Imaging Team, and said communication is key to the success of her teams work to expedite care. To make it easier on emergency staff, they now go directly to the patients, outside of the emergency room, to perform electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, essentially taking pictures of patients hearts to help physicians determine which direction a patient needs to go to for care.

Cheryl said, I talk to my staff everyday. We brief, and its anything that they can see make improvements and we talk about it and we can put it in place if its for everybody and not just one person. I think it has made things smoother for everybody because Im one of these people where if you know something is broken, try to fix it so you can work together, and the right hand has to know what the left hand is doing all the time.

Normally, they use four EKG machines at a time, but now with COVID-19, Cheryl said they have used eight in the department.

View post:

MedWatch Today: Healthcare Hero, Cardiology Medical Imaging Team - YourCentralValley.com

Health Care Providers and the State of Liability Protections in the COVID-19 Era – JD Supra

Key Points:

At least 4.8 million cases of the novel coronavirus have been reported and more than 158,000 people have died in the United States since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Nowhere has the challenge been more difficult than in the nations nursing homes and other long term care facilities where approximately 60,000 residents and staff have died of COVID-19.

Given the singular importance of the countrys health care providers, long-term care facilities and frontline workforce during the pandemic, as well as concerns about the viability of their continued operations absent liability protections, there were early calls for such protections at both the federal and state levels. This alert provides an update of the recent federal liability reform efforts directed at health care providers and a detailed, state-by-state review of the liability protections for providers, including the embattled nursing homes, which are already in place at the state-level.

In the early weeks of the pandemic, it became clear that providers and their health care workers were on the front lines of the COVID-19 crisis. In nursing homes, especially, the already difficult work was made far more challenging and dangerous by a lack of adequate staffing as the result of the pandemic, insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE), and the extreme vulnerability of the patients and residents. With the high rates of nursing home staff sickened or killed by COVID-19, one Congressional witness testified that these jobs are now more dangerous than those in the logging and commercial fishing industries.1

As outlined in depth below, seemingly overnight, through executive order, legislation, and regulation, states took the initiative to put liability protections in place. At the federal level, however, although there were early calls for protections, Congress and the administration were keenly focused on the more immediate concerns of combating the virus, providing relief funds to health care providers, and putting in place a variety of sweeping measures in an attempt to protect U.S. citizens and the economy.

Although the federal government has yet to enact liability protections for health care providers, the topic has now taken center stage in Congress. On July 27th, the Senate GOP unveiled its $1 trillion Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection and Schools (HEALS) Act. As pertinent here, the Safe to Work Act, a part of the HEALS Act, would provide liability protections to health care providers related to COVID-19.2

The proposed legislation creates an exclusive federal cause of action for medical liability claims relating to COVID-19 care. The Act would limit liability for providers and facilities to instances where it is proven by the heightened clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard that the defendant acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct and failed to make reasonable efforts to comply with applicable public health requirements.

As written, the legislation would cover all alleged COVID-related injuries that arise between December 1, 2019 and the later of the following: (1) the end of the coronavirus state of emergency declaration or (2) October 1, 2024. The Senate proposal also establishes a one year statute of limitations for these claims. Moreover, if enacted, these measures would serve as a floor for state-level liability protections, thereby preempting any state law that does not provide equal or greater protections to medical personnel and facilities.

To be sure, these are sweeping protections that would be welcomed by the health care industry. There are deep divisions and disagreements in Congress, however, regarding what the fourth COVID-19 relief package should contain and it is unclear whether, or in what form, these liability protections will ultimately be included in the final legislation. That said, it is important to note that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said for weeks that he will not allow a new COVID relief package to pass the Senate without significant liability protections.

State-Level Protections are in Place

Regardless of whether Congress enacts liability reforms or not, more than thirty states already have significant protections in place.

The following chart catalogues the present liability protections available to providers at the state level. Although some states enjoyed existing emergency provisions that extended a degree of immunity to health care providers during a declared state of emergency, many have issued new executive orders or regulation, or passed legislation, to address the issue in the wake of the current pandemic.

Though it is important to review the specific authorities and nuances of the protections in each state detailed above, in general these new measures provide protection for health care providers, except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct or gross negligence. It should be noted that many measures do make reference to the impact of COVID-19 on the facility, requiring that it have been a factor in or the direct cause of the injury.

Despite the prevalence of state-level liability protections, they certainly will not bring an end to the filing of lawsuits against providers and facilities. Nursing homes and other providers may still see the plaintiffs bar file lawsuits claiming that they are not covered by the liability protections because they acted with gross negligence while treating patients, staffing the facility or providing sufficient PPE. In addition, some plaintiffs attorneys reportedly are considering lawsuits challenging the underlying validity of these laws on Constitutional grounds. In any event, as the pandemic continues, and the health care industry across the United States continues to struggle through this historically challenging period, the call for strong liability protections at both the state and federal level will certainly not abate.

1 COVID-19 and Nursing Homes Before the H. Comm on Ways & Means Subcommittee on Health, 116thCong. (2020) (statement of Dr. David Grabowski, Professor of Healthcare Policy, Harvard University), available at https://youtu.be/KlTeBCX7K50.

2 The Safe to Work Act, [S. ], 116th Cong. (2020), available here.

Continued here:

Health Care Providers and the State of Liability Protections in the COVID-19 Era - JD Supra

Health Care Amid and After COVID-19: Public Policy Outlook – JD Supra

With the COVID-19 pandemic response and civil discourse on race and health disparities raising new questions about the future of U.S. health care policy, the winners of the 2020 federal elections will face a multitude of challenges and an opportunity to reshape the health care policy landscape. While there are many plausible election outcomes, by understanding ongoing health care regulatory rulemaking processes, policy wish-lists for Republican and Democratic legislators in both the House and the Senate, and the different health care priorities that would likely be pursued under a Trump administration and Biden administration, we can make measured predictions about what 2021 has in store for U.S. health care policy.

Washington is in its regulatory season, and there are two major categories of health care regulations annual payment regulations and other high-profile regulations that are in various stages of the rulemaking process.

The House Democrats will focus on its health care agenda priorities as well as policies that serve as messaging tools in preparation for the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

With Election Day drawing near, now is the time to consider and prepare for how the outcome of the presidential election could impact the future of U.S. health policy.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), which enables Congress to vacate regulations in their entirety via joint resolutions of disapproval, is also a key consideration as Election Day approaches.

Special thanks to Faegre Drinker summer law clerk Larissa Morgan, who assisted in drafting this alert.

Read more from the original source:

Health Care Amid and After COVID-19: Public Policy Outlook - JD Supra

McLeod names 2 Healthcare Heroes – Sumter Item

BY SHARRON HALEYClarendon Sun contributor

MANNING - Two health care professionals at McLeod Health Clarendon were recognized recently for going the extra steps for their patients.

Yolanda Butler, a technician in the emergency department, received a Healthcare Hero award for her dedication and commitment to patients.

"Knowing that I was able to make a difference for a patient and their family during a difficult time is priceless," Butler said.

Linda Buskey, a respiratory therapist at McLeod Health Clarendon, received a Healthcare Hero award for commitment and dedication.

"Serving others is all in a day's work at McLeod Health Clarendon," Buskey said.

The Healthcare Hero program gives patients, their caregivers, family and friends the chance to show their support of patient services and programs at McLeod Health while also recognizing the exemplary care received from a McLeod "Healthcare Hero" health care provider.

Anyone can nominate a health care professional or caregiver by logging onto http://www.mcleodhealthcarehero.org.

See the rest here:

McLeod names 2 Healthcare Heroes - Sumter Item

Improve mental health care before forcing it on people – Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and a handful of state legislators have been trying to change Californias landmark mental health laws to make it easier to force treatment on people who dont want it. But bills to scrap or change the law that limits forced treatment the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967 havent made it through the Legislature.

So last year critics tried a different tack: Require an official audit of LPS and how it operates in L.A. and two other counties, presumably to show how badly the act fails, and how outdated the notion is that people should have more say in choosing their own mental health treatments.

Instead, the audit released late last month found that the act gives counties all the authority they need to treat people in crisis. The real problem, the audit found, is not the patients right to self-determination, but the failure of the state and counties to provide sufficient ongoing care and housing after the forced treatment ends. Without those services, patients end up in a dismal and destructive cycle careening from a 72-hour 5150 hold to the street, to another mental health crisis that endangers themselves or others, and back to another three-day hold. Each new breakdown can cause further lasting damage.

Counties sometimes obtain renewable yearlong conservatorships but dont provide sufficient treatment, often because it is unavailable.

Perhaps its time for LPS critics to rethink their approach. The state has to find a way to fund, and counties to provide, ongoing mental health care. Sufficient and humane services (and housing, when needed) that leave patients a voice in important decisions and dont make them feel trapped could go a long way toward meeting the states mental health challenge.

There can be no doubt that California is in the midst of a mental health emergency. Serious mental illness afflicts a significant portion of the states huge homeless population, although contrary to a widespread perception far less than half of the tens of thousands of people on the streets. Between 30% and 40% of jail inmates also suffer a significant mental health condition. Less noticed are the families doing their best to care for a stricken relative. The COVID-19 crisis and the companion isolation and anxiety only exacerbate the condition of people already struggling with psychological problems.

Like other states, California once had a robust but deeply flawed system of mental hospitals that largely kept patients out of public view but too often failed to properly treat them. Forced treatment in warehouse-type institutions was phased out and was to be replaced by community-based outpatient or, when necessary, inpatient treatment.

But the community services never materialized to match the volume of need.

The LPS law, fully implemented in the 1970s, limited the states ability to institutionalize people and to treat them against their will.

Now the debate over mental health care too often breaks down along ideological lines over the question of which is paramount a persons liberty and self-determination, or that persons health and well-being. The results are often surprising. Conservatives might be expected to promote individual rights. If requiring a mask during a pandemic is an unwarranted intrusion on liberty, for example, how much more so is government-enforced psychiatric treatment? Yet many conservatives and other skeptics of government find themselves pressing for re-institutionalization. Liberals who might support masks and government-ordered business closures appear split on compelled mental health treatment.

Beyond ideology, California has a serious shortage of mental health services in any setting. LPS doesnt require the counties or the state to fix that problem. Some county mental health professionals want the act amended to compel them to provide care, because only then, they argue, will counties step up to avoid costly lawsuits.

And there is indeed a crisis, not addressed by LPS, of mentally ill people who are slowly deteriorating but dont recognize their condition (or dont care) and are not undergoing the kind of breakdown that the law deems fair game for a 5150 hold. But Californias priority should be providing people the services they need, not forcing them to use services that are inadequate to keep them out of the street-to-care-to-street cycle.

There will be no way to fix mental health care on the cheap. The need is profound, but its not so much the law standing in the way as it is the failure to live up to the promises of more than half a century ago to provide adequate mental health treatment where it is most effective.

See original here:

Improve mental health care before forcing it on people - Los Angeles Times

Healthcare employment rebound slowed in July – Modern Healthcare

Ambulatory serviceshealthcare's largest employertook the biggest hit during the shutdown, and it is taking longer than the overall industry to rebound. The sector added 126,200 jobs last month, compared with 367,800 in June. Dentist and physician clinics suffered the most losses at the height of the shutdowns. Ambulatory employment was down just 3.9% in July compared with pre-pandemic January.

The pace of job recovery is likely tempered by providers' own caution against reopening too quickly, especially in areas where coronavirus cases are surging, Shehata said. In areas like the Southern U.S. where there have been aggressive reopenings, ambulatory providers have been slowed by backlogs in appointments due to pent-up demand.

Overall, the economy added 1.8 million jobs and the unemployment rate fell 0.9 percentage points to 10.2%. The biggest job gains were in leisure and hospitality and food services and drinking places. The number of people on temporary layoff fell to 9.2 million, about half its April level.

Hospitals furloughed and laid off employees as they shut down divisions, but that didn't cause as big of an employment hit compared with the ambulatory sector. Hospital employment was down just 1.2% last month from January.

"I was a little surprised that in hospitals it's not worse than that," said Ani Turner, Altarum's co-director of sustainable health spending strategies.

Hospitals added an estimated 27,400 jobs in July, far more than the 2,100 they added in Junea number the BLS revised down from its initial June projection of 6,700 jobs.

That still leaves the question of whether hospitals will continue to regain jobs, or if job growth will level off at a point that's below normal. Federal grants and loans providers received under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act offered a boost, but things are uncertain moving forward, Turner said.

"We'll see what the final new equilibrium is," she said.

Nursing homes continue to shed jobs even as the rest of the healthcare industry does the opposite. They lost 17,500 jobs in July and employed 7.7% fewer people last month than in January. Overall, nursing and residential care facilities have shed about 220,000 jobs since March.

Even before the pandemic, nursing home employment had been shrinking as older adults and their families opted for less intensive residential care facilities in lieu of nursing homes, Turner said.

COVID-19 has prompted more people to avoid all types of residential facilities for older adults, though, because the coronavirus tended to spread quickly through facilities where residents are older, have chronic conditions and require frequent care.

The pandemic laid bare long-running infection control and staffing problems in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, which is where a significant proportion of COVID-19 deaths are believed to have occurred.

It's possible that trend is driving an increased demand for home health services, Shehata said. Indeed, home health added 15,600 jobs in July, after having added 18,100 in June.

The pace at which healthcare jobs return is going to be a local and even regional story, with wide variation depending on the level of coronavirus activity in an area, Shehata said.

"If the economy is back to productivity, you're going to see that backlog begin to flow into the healthcare system," he said.

Read the original:

Healthcare employment rebound slowed in July - Modern Healthcare

United States Healthcare Data Interoperability Market Radar 2020 – Most Health Systems’ Essential Services are Focused on Tackling the Unprecedented…

DUBLIN, Aug. 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The "The US Healthcare Data Interoperability Market, 2020" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

Interoperability has become a critical consideration for all health IT (HIT) applications. All the major healthcare stakeholders across the world acknowledge the need to invest in digital infrastructure capabilities to facilitate cross-continuum patient information exchanges and support evidence-based care, at scale.

Regulatory agencies are embracing forward-thinking policies that advocate the need for all the leading vendors to become fully interoperable with each other. The objective is to drive a progressive digital healthcare model, that is, a standardized, collaborative, and multidisciplinary yet modular approach that is based on an application programming interface (API).

Many leading HIT vendors and hospitals in the United States are not likely to comply with CMS' 21st Century Cures Act, although it makes provisions for the secure transfer of patient data across the care continuum (due to threats such as breach of patient privacy) and the overwhelming cost of commitment; provisions also exist to cover any significant penalties involved.

Owing to COVID-19, most health systems' essential services (both, manually driven and digitally enabled) are focused on tackling the unprecedented surge in patient footprint across primary, in-patient, and long-term care systems. Therefore, ONC in collaboration with CMS and HHS OIG has extended the timeline for the implementation of Interoperability Final Rules to 3 months post completion of the ONC Health IT Certification Program for specific value-based care tracks.

Allscripts, IBM, Change Healthcare, and InterSystems are the leading US healthcare data interoperability market participants marked on the Research Radar. Optum is the fastest-growing company, and IBM is the most innovative.

Key Topics Covered

1. Strategic Imperative and Growth Environment

2. The Research Radar

3. Companies to Action

4. Strategic Insights

5. Next Steps: Leveraging the Research Radar to Empower Key Stakeholders

6. Research Radar Analytics

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/6mm8m9

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

See more here:

United States Healthcare Data Interoperability Market Radar 2020 - Most Health Systems' Essential Services are Focused on Tackling the Unprecedented...

Coronavirus is killing more healthcare workers in Mexico. Here’s why. – NBC News

MEXICO CITY - When the coronavirus epidemic began to intensify in Mexico at the end of March, Doctor Jose Garcia said his bosses at a public trauma hospital in Mexico City denied his request for masks, gloves and disinfectant.

They argued such protective equipment was only necessary for those working directly with coronavirus patients, Garcia said. Unconvinced, he bought it himself.

The hospitals director disputes this, saying all staff received protective equipment. Either way, Garcia had already contracted the virus and infected his wife and one-year-old daughter.

Garcia is one of over 70,000 medical workers to catch the coronavirus in Mexico, where the pandemic death toll is now the third-highest worldwide, behind the United States and Brazil.

Government data indicates that healthcare workers risk of dying is four times higher than in the United States, and eight times higher than in Brazil.

The coronavirus has hit health workers all over the world, but its been especially bad in Mexico, said Alejandro Macias, an epidemiologist who spearheaded Mexicos response to the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

Staff have had to buy their own equipment, often in informal marketplaces and of substandard quality, Macias said.

The government has said there were shortcomings in equipment provision early on but says it has worked hard to protect workers and flown in vital equipment from China and the United States. It also accuses past administrations of letting the health service deteriorate.

Mexicos deputy health minister and coronavirus czar, Hugo Lopez-Gatell, said in July that many of the nurses and doctors who died of the virus had pre-existing medical conditions, and that some did not use protective gear in optimal fashion.

In Mexico, 19 percent of confirmed infections are of medical staff, almost three times the global average, according to figures from the International Council of Nurses and the Mexican National Association of Doctors and Nurses.

The plight of health workers is complicating efforts to contain the outbreak, which has killed close to 50,000 people in Mexico, battered the economy and cost millions of jobs.

The Morning Rundown

Get a head start on the morning's top stories.

Garcia, 48, said in an interview that he believes he was one of about a dozen medical staff indirectly infected by a patient who arrived at the Lomas Verdes hospital with coronavirus symptoms and later died.

Theyve been very irresponsible with us, he said, referring to his employer and its alleged failure to provide protective equipment.

The hospitals director, Gilberto Meza, said that 213 Lomas Verdes staff had contracted the virus. Citing an epidemiological study he said the hospital had conducted, he said that all were infected outside the facility.

He said all staff had received goggles, face shields and masks. He declined to say when they were provided.

Garcia and his family survived and he is now back at work. But the two weeks they had coronavirus symptoms were, he said, hell: headaches, fever, diarrhea and shortness of breath.

As of July 24, 72,980 Mexican medical staff had caught the coronavirus, and 978 died, government figures show.

In the United States, which has a population 2.5 times that of Mexico, 123,738 medical personnel have tested positive for coronavirus and 598 have died, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) figures.

The health ministry of Brazil, which is about two-thirds more populous than Mexico, had reported 189 deaths of medical practitioners by end-July. Some private data in Brazil give higher figures, but still well below Mexico.

Over a dozen nurses and doctors interviewed by Reuters said they got the virus in part because they did not receive timely information or protective equipment.

Many have protested about having to reuse disposable gear and launched petitions for better kit.

In one public hospital in northern Mexico, medical workers told Reuters in April their managers told them not to wear protective masks to avoid unsettling patients.

Zoe Robledo, head of Mexicos main public health service, IMSS, said in April that it had suffered equipment shortages, as well as delays, oversights, and errors that needed correcting.

Mexicos spending on health as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the lowest in the 37-member Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

A recent study by the OECD put Mexicos health spending at 5.5% of GDP, compared to 9.1% in Chile and 7.3% in Colombia in 2019. In Brazil it was 9.4%, though the latest data available were from 2017.

Nurses often work in multiple hospitals to supplement wages of about 8,500 pesos ($377) per month, according to Mexico Citys government. Movement between hospitals heightens the contagion risk, said Oliva Lopez, the citys health minister.

Our health personnel combine multiple jobs and are exposed in multiple spaces, Lopez told Reuters, saying her ministry had gone to great lengths to get staff protective equipment, and blaming previous governments for pauperizing the profession.

More than 600 nurses had died by the end of June in some 30 countries surveyed by the Geneva-based International Council of Nurses. Mexico accounted for 160 of the deaths, or over a quarter.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one nurse at a Mexico City public hospital said she felt abandoned by authorities.

But we cant say: Now I cant work, or dont want to, she said. This is what we trained for.

Follow NBC Latino on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Follow this link:

Coronavirus is killing more healthcare workers in Mexico. Here's why. - NBC News

COVID-19 and Maine’s budget crisis require action on health care costs – Bangor Daily News

Gov. Janet Mills has led Maines response to the health crisis with compassion and clarity. Yet Maine is not immune from the seismic impacts of COVID-19. A $1.4 billion budget shortfall is estimated over the next three years, including a loss of more than $520 million this fiscal year. Maine holds the unsavory distinction of the greatest racial disparity in COVID-19 infection rates, with Black Mainers more than 20 times more likely to contract the virus than their white neighbors. A recent report shows 14,000 Mainers will be newly uninsured after tens of thousands have lost employer-provided insurance since February.

Health insurance companies are proposing raising rates for small businesses, with initial filings showing the highest requested increase for 2021 topping out at over 10 percent, following rate hikes in the double-digits last year for many plans. The Maine Health Data Organization reports that overall, the 25 most costly drugs in Maine increased in cost by nearly 11 percent last year and the cost per person increased by 27 percent. In 2018, Maines per-capita health expenditures were 10 percent higher than the U.S. average.

Our most recent polling shows over two-thirds of Mainers are concerned about not being able to afford health coverage, copays and deductibles. Nearly three quarters are concerned about prescription drug prices, with two out of three worried they wont be able to afford the medicine they need. These concerns are growing with more Mainers losing coverage.

State policymakers have taken significant steps to improve health care affordability, and this moment calls for continued action to control rising costs and expand accessibility without cutting vital access to programs. We need solutions that not only stop the spread of the virus but make sure Maine can reopen its doors and stay open. This is especially important as vulnerable Mainers return to work, caring for older Mainers and providing other essential services.

Expanded MaineCare is helping thousands access the coverage and care they need, and laws enacted last year improve affordability and access to health care in Maines individual and small business markets. Bipartisan support of measures to address skyrocketing prescription drug prices, including the creation of a Prescription Drug Affordability Board to help contain drug costs in public health programs, shows Maine policymakers can work together to address the problems we face. And that work must continue with urgency.

It starts with our federal lawmakers. Initial increases in federal match rates for state Medicaid programs have been helpful but are nowhere close to what is needed to help fill the gaps in state revenue. The HEROES Act passed by the House includes increased Medicaid funding to help avoid devastating health care cuts at the state level, but the Senates HEALS Act does not.

State policymakers have an opportunity to address rising costs with Senate President Troy Jacksons bill, LD 2110, An Act to Lower Health Care Costs. It passed in the Maine House and Senate, but sits awaiting final action as the Legislature contemplates a special session. The bill creates an independent entity to examine and identify ways to lower health care costs. It would also provide staffing to Maines Prescription Drug Affordability Board, which has only met once since its creation due in part to the lack of dedicated staff.

With an ongoing pandemic and revenue losses, reining in health care costs while also ensuring access to care has never been more important. A similar effort in Massachusetts has already produced very promising results.

There are real opportunities to protect the health care gains we have made in Maine and to help those who are going without. I am more than hopeful and confident policy makers at both the federal and state level will put politics aside and work together to protect the health and well-being of the people they represent.

Ann Woloson is the executive director of Consumers for Affordable Health Care.

More here:

COVID-19 and Maine's budget crisis require action on health care costs - Bangor Daily News

Messenger: From COVID to Medicaid expansion, Missouri governor’s race revolves around health care – STLtoday.com

Its that process that creates the dichotomy Silvey lamented. The reason that lawmakers are out of touch with statewide voters isnt just because of the states longstanding rural-urban divide, its also because they long ago gerrymandered legislative districts to protect incumbent Republicans. Doing so made the districts look less like their actual communities and created primaries where, in most cases, only the most extreme Republican could win.

There are very few legislative districts left in Missouri that could elect a thoughtful Republican voice like Silvey or Barnes, and that puts the state at a loss.

So in November, as Parson is running from his COVID-19 record and his opposition to providing health care to the working poor, the bipartisan coalition that passed Medicaid, passed the minimum wage, fought right-to-work and supported medical marijuana, will be back to defend Clean Missouri.

I think you will see similar voices of support, for the Vote No on Amendment 3 campaign that Missouri saw with Medicaid expansion, says political strategist Sean Nicholson, who is getting the Clean Missouri band back together. There will be business and labor groups and community groups. There is a disconnect between what the Legislature has been working on and where the people are at.

The people, says Silvey, want health care. They want the government to solve problems. Yes, even Republicans. Medicaid expansion passed overwhelmingly in Kansas City, St. Louis and Columbia, but it also passed in the two Republican hotbeds of St. Charles County and Green County.

See the original post:

Messenger: From COVID to Medicaid expansion, Missouri governor's race revolves around health care - STLtoday.com