Supreme Courts health care law ruling worries 34 states

WASHINGTON Officials in several Republican states that balked at participating in President Obama's health care initiative are revisiting the issue amid mounting panic over a possible Supreme Court decision that would revoke federal insurance subsidies for millions of Americans.

The discussions taking place in state capitals across the country are part of a flurry of planning and lobbying by officials, insurance and hospital executives and health care advocates to blunt the possible impact of a court ruling.

The justices hear arguments about the matter this week. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, who argue that subsidies are not allowed in the 34 states that opted against setting up their own insurance marketplaces, the ruling could spark an immediate crisis. People could see their insurance bills skyrocket or be forced to abruptly cancel their health insurance.

At least six states where Republican leaders had refused to set up state marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act are now considering what steps they might take to preserve the subsidies being paid to their residents.

Efforts to try to hold on to the subsidies are even under consideration in South Carolina, which supported the challenge now before the Supreme Court. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a Republican, said her state might consider setting up a marketplace, though it is unclear how such a proposal would fare in the staunchly conservative state.

We're going to start in this next week working on some things statewide, Haley, one of the health law's fiercest critics, said late last week.

A total of nine states now have bills under consideration to set up their own marketplaces, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though in some cases these efforts began even before the court accepted the subsidies case.

Lobbyists for insurers, hospitals and consumer groups are alerting legislators in some states to what they call the potentially disastrous consequences if the subsidies are suddenly revoked. In Pennsylvania, for example, hospitals and insurers are trying to coax the Republican-led Legislature to back a state marketplace if immediate action is needed to preserve the subsidies.

But there are enormous logistical and financial barriers to setting up a marketplace this late in the game, experts say. The states that have their own marketplaces took several years to set up the websites, contract with insurance companies and establish call centers. They did so with the help of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants that are no longer available.

Insurers are gaming out who is going to drop coverage, and how quickly, if the subsidies dry up. The companies have begun devising strategies to hold on to these customers. Insurers that did major hiring to handle the new business resulting from the marketplaces are figuring out whether layoffs might be needed.

Go here to read the rest:

Supreme Courts health care law ruling worries 34 states

Argument preview: Now, the third leg of the health-care stool

At 10 a.m. Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold oral argumenton the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the new federal health-care law. The oral arguments inKing v. Burwell will featuretwo high-profile lawyers, Michael A. Carvin of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jones Day, for the challengers, and U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., defending the subsidy systemdesigned to help millions of consumersafford health insurance. The hearing is scheduled for one hour, but it may be allowed to run longer, especially since no other cases are up for argument that day.

Background

Five years ago, when Congress finishedwriting nearly athousand pages that would becomethe new national health-care law, it was well aware that the finished product would be subject to strong challenges. The Affordable Care Act was passed in both houses with not one Republican lawmaker voting for it. The day after it passed, Republicans introduced a bill to repeal it. The House has since voted some sixty times forrepeal.

Still, the law remains on the books, while controversy goes on,and the Supreme Court has now alloweditself back into the middle of the dispute, for the second time in three years.

Backers of the bill have always said it had three interlocking parts that were vital sometimes referred to as the three legs of a stool. The stool metaphor, they said, was apt: cut off any of the legs, and the thing would collapse.

One legwas not controversial with many people:insurance companiescouldno longer deny coverage or hike premiums just because a person had existingproblems heart disease, for example or a past history of such problems. Insurers, though, were heavily involved in writing the new law, and they were being assured a nationwide pool of customers for their business.

Another leg, to insure that there would be that nationwide pool, was a mandate that every individual in the country would have to buy health insurance or else pay a financial penalty with their tax return. That was the leg that challengers singled out three years ago, but a Supreme Court majority found a way to reinforce that leg constitutionally.

The third leg the one now under challenge in the Court created a system of tax credits, or subsidies, to enable middle- or lower-income people to afford health insurance. It would be available to individuals who did not have coverage through their jobs, and could not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. They would shop for insurance on marketplaces (formally, exchanges) set up in every state, offeringa smorgasbord of supposedly affordable insurance plans.

If that leg is cut off, the supporters of the ACA have always argued, it would set off a death spiral death, here, in an economic sense. Unable to afford health insurance without a subsidy, millions of healthy people would lose their policies, and the shrinking of the healthy consumer pool would lead insurance companies to escalate premium prices spiraling into the death of the ACA.

The size of that threat may already be clear: in the latest sign-up period for health insurance under ACA, some 11.2 million Americans sought coverage, and eighty-sevenpercent of them did so with the support of a subsidy.

Go here to read the rest:

Argument preview: Now, the third leg of the health-care stool

Will 2015 Be The Year Our Smartphones Link Up To Our Brains?

Provided by Popular Science The Boston office of Thync, its interior walls covered in scribbles of dry-erase marker, exudes the youthful energy of any tech startup. But theres one noticeable departure from the typical startup visible just as I walk in the front door: a sign notifying study participants to please take a seat: someone will be with them shortly. Over the course of an hour, a handful of these participants, mostly college-aged, cycle through Thyncs offices, where they will fasten electrodes to their heads and become another data point in the companys growing body of neurological knowledge.

Thync bills itself first and foremost as a neuroscience company. Its sole productslated for release later this yearis a smartphone-controlled wearable device that will allow the user to actively alter his or her brains electrical state through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The big idea: give users active influence over their brain chemistries, and therefore their moods, their anxiety, and even their mental productivityan app that can conjure feeling of calm and tranquility or dial up a users attention and focus on demand.

Its the kind of technology thats been long promised but never delivered, a melding of consumer electronics and human biology that smacks of fantasy futurism. But nearly 2,000 people have already logged thousands of hours with Thyncs device in scientific trials. Thats what Thyncs founders believe differentiates their company from the many brain-interfacing technologies that have fizzled before it, and why a rotating cast of test subjects--including me--are at Thyncs offices today with small electrodes stuck to our heads. Were part of the science that Thyncs researchers believe will deliver the first real brain-interfacing consumer product before the end of the year.

Were in uncharted territory, its a new frontier, and people are going to be skeptical, says Issy Goldwasser, Thyncs co-founder and CEO. We want to make sure we have something real. So the company has from its outset been about the science, and thats important.

Thyncs other co-founder and chief science officer, Jamie Tyler, puts it another way. This company started as a science experiment, he says, which is to say it started with a technological outcome rather than a specific product in mind. Goldwasser sought out Tyler, who at the time was doing some envelope-pushing research into ultrasounds effects on the brain. The duo launched Thync in late 2011 to explore how ultrasound could be used to stimulate certain regions of the brain to produce specific responses, with the ultimate aim of integrating ultrasound into a brain-interfacing device.

Ultimately the ultrasound efforts foundered, and they turned to tDCS, or transcranial direct current stimulation. The technology, which involves stimulating targeted brain regions with low-current pulses of electricity, was, they concluded, consumer-ready.

Since then, Thync has grown to 20 full-time staff, collected roughly $13 million in venture funding, and produced a closely-guarded prototype of a consumer device that, Tyler says, is easy to use and works for the vast majority of people. With just a couple of electrodes stuck on the temple and at the back of the neck, Thyncs tDCS device delivers specially-designed waveforms of electricityThync calls these waveforms vibesto specific regions of the cranium.

These customized vibes are Thyncs secret sauce; the resulting mild shift in the brains electric state can reduce stress and anxiety or call up a persons best stuff on demand, Tyler says. And thats really just the beginning. Thync plans to launch its app with two vibes, Calm and Energy, but as the technology (and the science) progresses, more vibes for more feelings could be on the way.

Tyler, Goldwasser, and the rest of the Thync team are adamant that the technology works, and are themselves daily users of the prototype Thync technology. To prove it, theyve done extensive in-house research (hence the collegiate-types rotating through the front office) as well as contracted a third-party chronic-use study with City College of New York.

Conducted in the lab of Biomedical Engineering Professor Marom Bikson at City College New York, subjects were given tDCS stimulation via Thyncs device, a conventional clinical tDCS device, or sham stimulationtDCS that wasnt targeted in any specific way but, in terms of the tactile feel, indistinguishable from real tDCS. One hundred test subjects underwent stimulation as many as five times a day, four times per week, for six weeks running.

See the article here:

Will 2015 Be The Year Our Smartphones Link Up To Our Brains?

Academic freedom: Scholarly concept sparks lively mainstream debate

Academic freedom is a source of lively debate right now among some at Kansas University, where the cases of two faculty members have propelled the term out of academia and into mainstream headlines. And KU is not the only school with academic freedom disputes making the news.

Theres unease among faculty on the KU campus now that the Kansas Board of Regents social media policy has been approved but not yet applied to anyone, which would reveal the extent of its restrictiveness, said University Senate President Jonathan Mayhew, a professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese.

There is a sense that academic freedom is under threat, Mayhew said. People feel that they dont really know ... what the limits are now.

Likewise, a pending lawsuit by a School of Business lecturer who does not want KU to release his emails to students requesting them under the Kansas Open Records Act has faculty wondering exactly where the academic freedom balance tips.

As a faculty member I dont love the idea that every email I write might be subject to public disclosure under the Kansas Open Records Act, said Richard Levy, J.B. Smith Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law. But at the same time I also, as a lawyer, recognize that when you use your employers email you have no claim to privacy in those emails.

KU journalism professor David Guth.

Art Hall, KU School of Business

In 2013, KU journalism associate professor David Guth was put on leave for an anti-NRA tweet after a mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. The situation inflamed gun-rights supporters, outraged some politicians and prompted the Regents to enact a statewide policy allowing universities to fire faculty members who post messages on social media that are contrary to the best interests of the employer.

Currently, the University Senate is working to finalize a procedure for the university to adopt that would outline the fact-finding and possible disciplinary process for a faculty member accused of violating the policy.

In Douglas County District Court, a judge will decide whether to release lecturer Art Halls correspondence. Hall is founding executive director of KUs Center for Applied Economics and former chief economist for the Public Sector Group of Koch Industries Inc.

More here:

Academic freedom: Scholarly concept sparks lively mainstream debate

How Pittsburgh's Freedom House Pioneered Paramedic Treatment

Freedom House paramedics, who first were deployed in the 1960s, provided a crucial service for Pittsburgh residents. The program became a national model for emergency medical transport and care.

In the 1960s, Pittsburgh, like most cities, was segregated by race. But people of all colors suffered from lack of ambulance care. Police were the ones who responded to medical emergency calls.

"Back in those days, you had to hope and pray you had nothing serious," recalls filmmaker and Hollywood paramedic Gene Starzenski, who grew up in Pittsburgh. "Because basically, the only thing they did was pick you up and threw you in the back like a sack of potatoes, and they took off for the hospital. They didn't even sit in the back with you."

Ambulances existed, but they were privatized and didn't offer emergency care or go everywhere.

That changed with the start of the Freedom House Ambulance Service, the city's first mobile emergency medicine program. Starzenski tells the story in his documentary Freedom House Street Saviors.

The service became the national model, but it started out by serving Pittsburgh's mostly black Hill District. Nowadays, the Hill District is famous because of its prominence in playwright August Wilson's work. In the 1960s, like many city neighborhoods, it teemed with racial unrest.

Riots that erupted in the wake of the April 1968 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. left Hill District shops gutted and hundreds out of work.

Freedom House provided a solution, creating jobs for the unemployed and providing a crucial service for an imploding community.

Blacks were not the only Pittsburgh residents who suffered from lack of care in those days. In 1966, the city's mayor collapsed. By the time he reached the hospital in a police car, he had gone too long without oxygen; he later died.

Starzenski's family also experienced the difficulties before Freedom House services existed. His grandfather suffered a fall in the early 1960s. "When they came to the house," Starzenski says, "they didn't have any equipment. My grandfather, his head was bleeding pretty bad, and the only thing they did was they asked us for a towel and they slapped a towel around my grandfather's head and they took off to the hospital."

See original here:

How Pittsburgh's Freedom House Pioneered Paramedic Treatment

High taxes, regulations make NY dead last in freedom

The United States might be the land of the free, but some states are clearly freer than others. Based on a new national ranking, New Yorkers have the worst claim to the benefits of a free society.

This week, the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation published its inaugural First in Freedom Index. Using more than 60 data points, we calculated fiscal, educational, regulatory and health-care freedom in the 50 states.

New York ranked last.

Yes, this means that the state has the dubious distinction of having less freedom than California and even New Jersey.

Between high taxes and onerous regulations, New Yorkers are squeezed more than residents of other states, on top of the high cost of living.

This endeavor was no mere academic exercise. A sizable body of empirical research suggests that fiscal freedom drives economic growth, educational freedom raises student achievement, regulatory freedom promotes entrepreneurship, and health-care freedom improves quality of life.

All states have room to improve, but none more than New York.

Overall, 25 percentof states total ranking was based on taxes controlled and amended only through the decisions of state lawmakers. These included individual income, sales, corporate, property and unemployment insurance taxes. Another 25 percentfocused on government spending, including welfare payments, food stamps, housing assistance and various grants and subsidies.

Using these and other measures of fiscal freedom, we determined that New York ranked 47th nationwide. Frankly, that should come as no surprise to taxpayers and small business owners.

NewYork has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.

More:

High taxes, regulations make NY dead last in freedom