INSURANCE FOR YOUR LIFE

Nearly half of Americans (48 percent) use at least one prescription drug*. But you may be surprised to learn which prescriptions are used most often.

So what's number one? Prozac, Vicodin, maybe an antibiotic? Nope. Check out this top-10 list* and see for yourself:

1. Lipitor

2. Nexium

3. Plavix

4. Advair Diskus

5. Abilify

6. Seroquel

7. Singulair

8. Crestor

9. Actos

10. Epogen

If you take a prescription drug you can't afford, check out InsWeb's 5 Ways to Save on Prescription Drug Costs and see if you can save money.

*Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 2010

** IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, April 2011

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read the full story »

For Americans, filling up the gas tank has become more painful than a dentist appointment. National gas prices are currently $3.95 per gallon, and many experts predict we could see $5-per-gallon gas this summer.

There is a silver lining, though. High gas prices bring golden opportunities that can actually improve our quality of life in the long-run.

In this three-part series, I will take a half-glass-full attitude to the recent fuel crisis by exploring the brighter side of high gas prices and outlining nine ways we can all benefit from skyrocketing gas prices.

So, let's begin. High gas prices have probably forced you to stay at home more often. And if you're driving fewer miles, you may be able to get cheaper auto insurance with a low-mileage discount.

Those who don't drive their personal vehicle to and from work may be classified as "pleasure drivers." So whether it's walking, riding a bicycle, carpooling or public transit, if you utilize an alternate form of transportation, you may save money. Not bad, eh?

But most folks still drive to and from work--what's in it for them? Well, the Federal Highway Administration reports that as gas prices rise, Americans drive fewer miles. This means fewer vehicles on the road and--you guessed it--less gridlock.

Additionally, according to FuelEconomy.gov (and common sense), sitting idle in traffic gets 0 mpg. The longer you idle, the more fuel you waste. So, with fewer cars on road helping to ease traffic, drivers who spend less time in gridlock will save gas. Escaping even 5 minutes of traffic could save you a few bucks each week, not to mention a whole lot of unnecessary stress.

Stay tuned for part two later this week.

Until then, educate yourself about a few Gas Saving Myths floating around and learn how to make your vehicle a bit more fuel-efficient.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read the full story »

By Louise on May 3rd, 2011

Last month, Colorado legislators approved Senate Bill 128, and on Friday Governor Hickenlooper signed it into law.  SB128 will require all health insurance carriers in Colorado that offer individual policies for adults to also offer child-only policies during two open-enrollment periods each year.

The law stipulates that the first open enrollment period will begin “on the first of the month closest to ninety days after the effective date of this section.”  The bill was signed into law on April 29, 2011.  Ninety days from then would be the end of July, so it appears that the first open enrollment period will be during the month of August this year.  The law then notes that in future years, the open enrollment period will be January and July each year, which was already established last fall.

Other interesting things to note about SB128…

The law allows carriers to deny coverage for a child-only policy if the child is eligible for other creditable coverage.  They specifically note that eligibility for high-risk pool coverage (like CoverColorado or GettingUsCovered) does not count, but that current coverage in a high-risk pool does.  So a parent cannot transfer a child out of a high-risk pool and onto a child-only policy.  But this paragraph in the bill (see the bottom of page 4) could be a sticking point for a lot of child-only applications.  It’s often the case that an employer who is offering group health insurance will pay for the employee’s coverage (or at least a portion of it) but require the employee to pay the premiums for dependents.  Some parents find that it’s less expensive in that situation to purchase a child-only policy for their child, and keep themselves on their employer’s policy.  But presumably if the child is eligible for coverage through a parent’s employer, individual health insurance carriers would not be required to offer the child a child-only policy.  As we’ve noted in the past, child-only policies represent a very small fraction of the individual health insurance market, but within the child-only market, it would seem that there are a lot of children who are also eligible for other creditable coverage (albeit more expensive coverage…).  It will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue once all the carriers return to the child-only market.The law allows carriers to impose a surcharge (of up to 50% of the normal premiums) for up to 12 months if a child is enrolled in a child-only policy, drops the coverage for more than 63 days, and then re-enrolls in a new child-only policy.  This is obviously an effort to prevent parents from buying coverage only when their children are in need of treatment.  Combined with the presence of open-enrollment periods (rather than continuously available policies), hopefully adverse selection in the child-only market will be limited.Carriers are required to issue “at least one child-only plan“.  It remains to be seen whether the carriers will opt to allow children to enroll in any of their normal individual policies, or whether they will limit parents seeking child-only coverage to one specific plan.

Hopefully SB128 will be successful at bringing back child-only coverage while still keeping things as fair as possible for both the health insurance carriers and the parents who are seeking coverage for their children.

Read the full story »

CHP+ Premiums Will Result In More Uninsured Kids .recentcomments a{display:inline !important;padding:0 !important;margin:0 !important;}HomeAboutGlossaryFAQApplicationsDentalHSAComplaint RatiosMaternityPPO/HMO ProvidersShort Term Health QuotesLife Insurance Quotes SubscribeContact Testimonials CHP+ Premiums Will Result In More Uninsured KidsBy Louise on May 4th, 2011

An editorial in the Denver Post today discusses the possible ramifications of Colorado Senate Bill 213, which passed it’s third reading in the House last month.  The editorial was written by people who definitely have experience when it comes to children and health care:  Chris Watney, the president and CEO of the Colorado Children’s Campaign;  Len Dryer, the CFO for The Children’s Hospital; and Dr. Steve Federico, president of the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Chris, Len, and Steve note that SB213 would likely result in more uninsured Colorado children, since a monthly premium – even a small one – acts as a barrier to enrollment.  They remind readers that Colorado has tried this before:  in the late 90s, there was a monthly premium for CHP+, but it was abolished a decade ago.  The editorial also points out that implementing a monthly premium would increase the administrative costs associated with CHP+.  I’m sure this is true, although presumably the revenue generated from the premiums would be more than the cost associated with collecting them.

SB213 would not implement an enrollment fee for families with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level, or for pregnant women.  For a family of four, that’s $33, 525/year.  For families that earn more than 150% of FPL, but less than 205%, an annual enrollment fee would be charged for CHP+ coverage, although I didn’t see any specific amounts for this fee listed in the bill (the annual enrollment fee is currently $25 for one child, and $35 for two or more children).  For families that earn more than 205% of FPL ($45,817/year for a family of four), the monthly premium would be at least $20 for the first child enrolled in CHP+ and at least $10 for each additional child.  But there would be a cap of $50/family/month, regardless of how many children were enrolled.  The monthly premium system would take effect on July 1, 2011.

I can see both sides of this debate.  A total of not more than $50/month to insure all the children in a family is quite a bargain when compared with coverage through a standard group plan or individual policy.  Our own family has a high deductible, HSA qualified policy (what people often refer to as “catastrophic” coverage), and the cost to cover our two children on that plan is roughly $250/month.  On a group policy, dependent coverage is even more expensive (although some employers pay a portion of the dependents’ premiums).  Given the level of coverage provided by CHP+, $20 to $50/month is a very low premium.  And many people would say that a family of four earning $45k+ should be able to pay up to $600/year for their children’s health insurance.

However, the real world is not always ideal.  The Post editorial makes some very good points, and I don’t doubt that if CPH+ moves to a monthly premium system this summer, there will be some kids who lose their coverage, and fewer children will enroll in the future compared with how many would have enrolled if monthly premiums were not part of the deal.

I understand the need for Colorado to balance the budget.  And funding public programs takes money – money which is in short supply right now.  It appears that SB213 has a lot of support.  It will help to offset the money the state spends to provide health insurance to children on CHP+, and most people tend to be in favor of legislation that requires people to contribute a little of their own money in exchange for publicly-funded services.  But people should also be aware of the points that the Post editorial makes, and understand that while SB213 will help to generate funds for CHP+, it will also almost certainly result in some Colorado kids losing their health insurance.  That may be an unavoidable consequence, but it’s a consequence that shouldn’t be brushed off lightly.

Read the full story »

By Louise on April 28th, 2011

This week’s Health Wonk Review includes a thought-provoking article by Dr. Doug Perednia, written in response to Paul Krugman’s “Patients Are Not Consumers“.  Dr. Perednia makes some excellent points about the inability of patients to be true “consumers”, even in cases where they have their own money on the line.  He notes that if you call your doctor’s office to find out the price of a procedure, they won’t be able to tell you because there are too many complexities in the health insurance system for the doctor to give you an accurate idea of what the cost will be.  And if you call your health insurance carrier directly, you won’t get a clear answer either.  We’ve found that even if you know that a procedure isn’t going to be covered by your health insurance, and try to shop around for a price as a patient paying cash, it’s still next to impossible to get an accurate idea of what the cost of a procedure will be until the actual bill arrives.  And even if a patient is a diligent “consumer” – asking question, pre-authorizing everything with their health insurance carrier in advance, making sure that all of the providers are in-network – there are still surprises that can pop up, thanks to the convoluted nature of our health care system and health insurance networks.  Our family has had an HSA-qualified health insurance policy for several years, and we’ve tried to the best of our ability to be conscious consumers when it comes to our health care.  But it’s not an easy task, even if you think you know all the right questions to ask.

Dr. Perednia also makes a very good point about the illegality of “balance billing”, and the fact that if Medicare’s reimbursement for a particular service is too low to make it financially worthwhile for the provider, a Medicare patient cannot simply pay out-of-pocket for the procedure.  However, patients are free to go to a doctor who doesn’t take Medicare and pay out-of-pocket for any procedure the doctor offers.  And my understanding is that if a particular service isn’t covered at all by Medicare, patients can go to a doctor who does take Medicare and pay cash for the procedure.  So there’s truth to the statements made by both Krugman (“we’re not talking about limits on what healthcare you’re allowed to buy with your own money”) and by Perednia.

I liked the point Dr. Perednia made about how prices for elective and cosmetic procedures have declined over the past decade.  Procedures such as laser vision correction – paid for by the patients themselves, with little or no reimbursement coming from third parties – have gotten less expensive over the years.  We often hear that one of the reasons healthcare keeps getting more expensive is because we keep upgrading the technology being used.  And yet the technology used in today’s Lasik procedures is far more sophisticated than what they were using ten years ago.  In fact, technology in general keeps getting better and more advanced, while also getting less expensive as time goes by.  Cameras, computers, memory cards, phones… they all keep getting more powerful and faster, and in general, we continue to be able to get more for our money with each passing year.  Why then, is it so much different in the world of traditional health care?  Interesting points to ponder, and Dr. Perednia points out that what’s missing in the traditional health care model is the ability for patients to truly be “consumers” the way they can with elective health care.

Read the full story »

By Louise on April 18th, 2011

Last week’s Health Wonk Review included several articles about Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future“, which includes significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid, and a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.  This article from Avik Roy is particularly interesting, and raises some valid points in support of some aspects of the proposed budget reforms.  But there are definitely problems with some of the radical changes being proposed.  Wright On Health looks at some of the moral issues involved, and makes some very good points.  I also think The Incidental Economist is correct in noting that turning Medicaid into a block grant program will ultimately result in fewer people being covered by this safety net health insurance program.  Certainly, states would still be free to contribute more money to their own Medicaid programs, but it’s unlikely that all states would do so, and the result would be less overall funding for Medicaid (which translates to coverage for fewer people).  Joe Paduda points out that while the major health care reform aspects of Ryan’s proposal will appeal to a lot of people at first glance, they don’t really do anything to address the rising cost of health care.  This is a problem with the PPACA too – what began as health care reform seemed to devolve along the way into health insurance reform.  But health insurance premiums (and the rapid pace at which those premiums increase) reflect the cost of health care, and much more needs to be done to address the issues surrounding the cost of care.

Read the full story »

By Louise on April 20th, 2011

After a potential hiccup earlier this month, it appears that the process to create a Colorado health insurance exchange is back on track in the legislature.  The Legislative Council Committee voted overwhelmingly today to send Senate Bill 200 on to the Senate as a whole.  SB 200 was first introduced last month as a bipartisan venture to begin the process of creating a health insurance exchange specific to Colorado.  The PPACA requires that all states have exchanges starting in 2014, but states that opt to not set up their own exchange can elect to be part of a federal exchange instead.  Colorado lawmakers felt (rightly so, I believe) that it makes more sense for Colorado to design and implement an exchange that addresses the specific needs of the state rather than rely on a federally created exchange, and introduced SB200 to get the ball rolling.

However, the political nature of healthcare reform made it a tough sell for Republicans who were backing SB200.  Some lawmakers and constituents felt that the whole concept of health insurance exchanges was too tied into the PPACA.  So earlier this month, Rep. Amy Stephens (the Republican co-sponsor of SB200) asked that an amendment be added to SB200 that would require Colorado to opt out of federal healthcare reform in order for the exchange bill to take effect.

Democrats in the state legislature did not support the amendment, and there was concern at the time that the controversy could doom the bill before it ever really got started.  But today’s vote to send the bill to the Senate as a whole – without the amendment requiring Colorado to opt out of the PPACA – gives new life to the bill.

Regardless of whether you support the federal healthcare reform laws, it’s hard to see how it would be better for Colorado to forgo creating a state-specific exchange.  Doing so would mean that Colorado would have to participate in a federally-run exchange instead, and obviously such a program is not going to be geared to the specific needs of the people and businesses in Colorado.  So although there are still likely to be plenty of legal battles over the Constitutionality and implementation of the federal healthcare reform law, it makes sense for states to move ahead in creating their own exchanges.

Read the full story »