“The Week In News: Health Care Bill, Baby Einstein - WBUR” plus 4 more |
- The Week In News: Health Care Bill, Baby Einstein - WBUR
- Parents lose custody of 7 kids because they're too fat? - Tehran Times
- Scrutinizing 2010 Insurance Options - Herald Tribune
- Woman delivers in bus, baby dies - Kerala Next
- Littwin: If Chubby Baby and Skinny Toddler had kids, could they get ... - Denver Post
The Week In News: Health Care Bill, Baby Einstein - WBUR Posted: 24 Oct 2009 02:28 PM PDT The news this week ranged from a possible heath care breakthrough in Congress to Disney's decision to issue refunds for its Baby Einstein products. Guy Raz reviews the headlines, big and small, with our regular news analyst, James Fallows of The Atlantic magazine. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
Parents lose custody of 7 kids because they're too fat? - Tehran Times Posted: 24 Oct 2009 12:12 PM PDT
Seven children, including a newborn baby, have been taken from their overweight parents and put into care because of concerns over their welfare.
The family from Dundee, Scotland was split up by social workers following a meeting of the city's Children's Panel. The youngsters include a girl born earlier this week at the city's Ninewells Hospital and taken from the arms of her 322-pound mother shortly afterwards. The 40-year-old woman and her 53-year-old husband, who weighs around 252-pound, have not been named to protect the identity of their children. Two of their kids, ages 3 and 4, were taken into care earlier this year. Now the other five, including the newborn and a 13-year-old boy who is said to weigh 224-pounds, have been taken from their parents. The local authority insisted it was not its policy to remove children from their family home solely on the basis of weight problems. But the family's attorney Kathleen Price has previously claimed obesity was the main reason for the children being taken from their parents. She said the couple had not been given a fair hearing and had been "victimized." (Source: foxnews.com) This content has passed through fivefilters.org. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
Scrutinizing 2010 Insurance Options - Herald Tribune Posted: 24 Oct 2009 12:12 PM PDT The time-honored "evergreen" option — defaulting to your current plan — may simply no longer be an option. Either your employer no longer even offers that plan, or the terms may be so radically different that you may no longer want it. With so much in flux, this may be the year you will need to switch health plans. That realization hit home with me recently, and painfully, when I studied my own family's health insurance options for 2010, under my husband's employer-sponsored plan. Yowie! Our premiums in a basic P.P.O. plan will more than double in 2010. Our deductibles will be higher. And we will now have to pay a percentage of the bill for all office visits, rather than a simple $10 or $20 co-payment. Then, too, because the whole billing and collection system looks a lot more complicated, I predict we will spend twice as many hours dealing with medical paperwork in the coming year as we did in the last one. "Employees need to read their options very carefully," cautioned Randall Abbott, a senior consultant at Watson Wyatt, a benefits consulting firm. "More than ever before, employers are refining plan provisions and changing the choices in plans available." There is some good news, though, amid all the change. You may find that preventive services are now free, that generic drugs are cheaper and that wellness services are low-cost and plentiful. Many employers recognize that the best way to stave off those increasingly enormous major medical expenses is to spend a little more upfront on your behalf. So what did I do about my family's plan? I opted for a P.P.O., with a low premium and somewhat high deductible. The plan was different from last year's but offered by the same carrier. (I had been ready to take a leap of faith and select a high-deductible plan — something my colleague Walecia Konrad wrote about in her Patient Money column last week. But, alas, one was not part of the overall offerings.) Here's my advice for zeroing in on the best health plan for you. GET EDUCATED Don't just rely on the packet you received in the mail or the information sent to you via e-mail. I recently attended (for the first time ever) a benefits seminar that explained, in great detail, everything people covered by my husband's employer needed to know about the many ways the plan offerings had changed. I learned a lot from the presenter, but also from the questions asked by the audience. If you can't go to such a briefing, if it is offered, ask a colleague to pick up the literature they hand out and to debrief you on what she or he learned. If your employer doesn't offer information seminars, look on your company's intranet for interactive online tools that can help you compare health plans, benefit by benefit, and that can summarize your claims from past years. And find out whether you have access to phone advice. Many large employers hire outside vendors to offer personalized counseling; you call an 800 number and a trained staff member will help you determine which health plan makes the most sense for you. Some companies also have a dedicated line, operated with their own human resources professionals, that you can call with your questions. ASK YOUR DOCTORS Find out if the doctors you rely on participate in the plans being offered. Don't assume that just because they were in a specific plan last year that they will remain in it for 2010. Call and ask. PLAN YOUR CLAIMS To determine which health plan will cost you the least, write down every doctor's visit you are likely to make, every drug you think you'll take, and every pair of glasses or contact lenses you'll need to purchase in 2010. Then look carefully at how each of the plans you are considering would cover these claims. For instance, if you're pregnant, find out how visits to your ob/gyn are covered and what type of baby care services the plans offer. To get help with this task, go to your company's intranet and look for a tool that can estimate expenses for the coming year. "A medical expense estimator is a valuable tool for determining your total medical costs," said Sara Taylor, a health and welfare strategy leader for Hewitt Associates, a benefits consulting firm. "Yet only 11 percent of employees who have access to this Web tool use it." BEWARE THE LURKING DEVIL Even if your plan looks the same, scrutinize the details before you sign up. Some drug plans (like mine for example) have jettisoned co-payments in favor of co-insurance. This means employees have to pay a percentage of the cost of the medication, rather than just a flat fee. That means that a 90-day supply of a brand name drug like Ambien CR could run about $94 out of pocket (20 percent of $470) in 2010, rather than just a flat $20 or $40 co-payment. Look also at the out-of-pocket maximums for each plan. This is the amount of money you will be responsible for paying, before the plan covers 100 percent of your bills. COMPARE SPOUSE'S OPTIONS As premiums rise on family plans, and some employers make it more expensive to cover a spouse with access to health care through his or her employer, it's important to evaluate all your family's options. You might find it most cost-effective for your spouse to get single coverage and for you to maintain family coverage, or vice versa. HAVE PATIENCE "Most people see open enrollment as an intrusion," Mr. Abbott said. This year, it's better to view the process as a comparison-shopping challenge — rather than a miserable annoyance — and give it the same attention you would give to selecting a new car or high-definition television. Next week: Walecia Konrad's Patient Money column will offer guidance on navigating Medicare's open enrollment period. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
Woman delivers in bus, baby dies - Kerala Next Posted: 24 Oct 2009 02:18 AM PDT The hapless woman, Sreeja (20), had on Friday boarded the bus with her mother from their village for getting to Punalur Taluk Hospital after she felt labour pain and uneasiness.
As the state-run bus was jam-packed, she could manage to get a seat only in the rear-end of the vehicle which made its way to the town along the rutted and pot-holed road. When the bus reached the town, Sreeja was found in a highly exhausted and semi-conscious state condition and told her mother that she had already delivered. On knowing about it, the driver immediately took the bus to the hospital where the doctors found the new born dead due to want of neo-natal attention. According to hospital sources, Sreeja's condition was stable. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
Littwin: If Chubby Baby and Skinny Toddler had kids, could they get ... - Denver Post Posted: 22 Oct 2009 11:56 PM PDT The problem with getting genuine health care reform in America is that the "Today" show is so heavily booked. What I mean is, as of this writing, there are two basic ways to go about fixing the health care problems facing our nation: • Congress could — and I know this is a radical idea — pass comprehensive health care reform. • Or you, the public — by which I mean every red-blooded man, woman and especially child — could take a shot on national TV. As you've probably heard, Colorado is at the center of the health care debate. That's because we have Chubby Baby and Skinny Toddler and have therefore introduced to the nation what Michael Bennet has correctly called the Goldilocks Paradox. (OK, I added paradox, but Bennet had the Goldilocks idea. No mention of the three bears.) It began with the chubby, healthy, breast-fed baby, Alex Lange of Grand Junction, being turned down for health insurance by Rocky Mountain Health Plans because, his parents were told, he was "too fat." His parents appealed, noting that Alex was too young to be treadmilled. We moved on to skinny, healthy, curly-haired 2-year-old Aislin Bates of Erie, rejected by United Healthcare's Golden Rule subsidiary because she didn't meet the height and weight standards. If you get turned down by, uh, Golden Rule, try to imagine your chances with United Healthcare's other divisions. As Bennet said on the Senate floor, insurance companies were apparently looking only for children who were "just right." You see, Alex and Aislin had the dreaded pre-existing condition, which apparently can mean anything at all. Take the case of the Florida woman rejected, according to The Huffington Post, for her pre-existing condition — rape. Seems she had been assaulted and was taking doctor-prescribed, just-in-case anti-HIV drugs. How golden is that rule? Chubby Baby and Skinny Toddler fought back in the traditional American way — by going on TV. It was sort of like Balloon Boy, except featuring children at actual risk and with no family "Wife Swap" history. The Lange family went on a local Grand Junction TV station. The story was picked up by newspapers, including The Denver Post. It was then picked up by the "Today" show, which showed a kid seemingly at risk only from cheek-pinching relatives. The Bates family turned to Denver's Channel 7. Their story was picked up by The Huffington Post, after which the family, including irresistible Aislin, was invited onto the "Today" show. You know what happened. In both cases, the insurance companies coincidentally reversed themselves in what has become known as the "Today" Show Pre-Existing Exemption. The problem is, it's hard to get booked on the "Today" show. I was looking at the website, which displayed, among other features, a slide show of "fashionable cats posing in wigs." How do you hope to compete? OK, we laugh, what with the happy endings and all — except there are no happy endings, not unless Harry Reid can find 60 votes in the Senate to get health care reform passed. Until then, we have a country in which not only fat and skinny healthy babies can go uninsured but also sick babies. Imagine a country in which any baby — sick or healthy — is without health insurance, and then tell me why we don't need reform. It's crazy, maybe as crazy as our embrace of for-profit health insurance. But it must be said that the insurance industry now favors reform that allows for universal health care — just as long as everyone is required to be in the pool. That's how insurance works, of course: by spreading the risk. Reform — whatever Barack Obama said in the primaries — doesn't work without a mandate. It's like car insurance or, for that matter, Social Security. If you want sick babies insured, you need healthy 26-year-olds paying. With mandates, you also need generous subsidies. You can't force people who can't afford insurance to buy it, which is what the Senate Finance Committee bill does. You also need penalties because, even with subsidies, many young invincibles will still opt out, and once again, the Finance Committee bill falls short. Here's the hard truth: To make this work, you also need a public option. You need it to compete with private insurance to control costs. You need it because, if there's a mandate, you can't say to people that the only option they have is the one they've already turned down. The latest news is that Harry Reid will include a public option in the combined Senate bill. My guess is it will be one that includes an opt-out clause for reluctant states. Colorado, say, can choose the public option, and Nebraska, say, can turn it down. We'd see which state would prosper. Or, as a nation, we could stay with what we'll call our Jack Sprat model, in which the next Chubby Baby and Skinny Toddler get left out: Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean. And when they tried to get their kids insured, The system picked them clean. Mike Littwin writes Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at 303-954-5428 or mlittwin@denverpost.com. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
You are subscribed to email updates from Add Images to any RSS Feed To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |
No comments:
Post a Comment