Health Ruling is Prompting Scams
By Elise Viebeck
Source: thehill.com
Federal trade regulators warned Friday that scam artists are using the healthcare law to ask for consumers' personal information over the phone.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said that the illegal activity began after the Supreme Court ruled on June 28 to uphold the vast majority of the law.
Scam artists "say they're from the government" and use the Affordable Care Act as a hook to verify information, according to an FTC alert.
"They might have the routing number from your bank, and then use that information to get you to reveal the entire account number," the alert stated. "Or, they'll ask for your credit card or Social Security number, Medicare ID, or other personal information."
Regulators urged consumers not to give out personal or financial information after unsolicited contact from someone who says they are with the government.
"If someone who claims to be from the government calls and asks for your personal information, hang up. It's a scam," the alert stated.
Read more at the FTC site.
Joggers Rejoice!
Source: Dr. Ann Kulze
May 2012 Newsletter
Wellness Delivered Pure and Simple
In a stunning affirmation of the profound health-boosting effects of regular physical activity, European Cardiovascular researchers concluded that regular jogging can dramatically increase life expectancy. As part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study, investigators followed 19,329 adult study subjects over a period of up to 35 years. Study subjects who reported regular jogging at a "slow or average" pace were 40% less likely to die over the study period than non-joggers and increased their life expectancy by an average of 6 years. What's more, regular joggers also reported an enhanced sense of overall well-being.
Based on this evaluation, maximum survival benefits were seen in those who jogged between one to two and a half hours a week over two to three sessions. Thankfully, there are numerous types of aerobic activities that get the heart rate into this "jogging zone". According to the lead investigator, the goal is to move to the point of "feeling a little breathless, but not very breathless". (1)
OSHA launches heat safety phone app
Source: https://www.wave3.com
By Joey Brown
LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) – The extreme heat can be a work hazard for some people, and for that reason, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has created a mobile phone app to help keep workers safe.
The OSHA Heat Safety tool provides vital safety information whenever and wherever it is needed on workers' mobile phones.
The app allows workers and their supervisors to calculate the heat index for their work site and displays a risk level to outdoor workers. It also issues reminders about protective measures that should be taken at that risk level to protect against heat-related illnesses.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are responsible for the safety and health of their workers, including conditions that could lead to heat-related illness.
To get the free smart phone app, search for "OSHA Heat Safety Tool" at the App Store.
Are Chubby Workers Eating You Out of Profits?
Source: https://safetydailyadvisor.blr.com
OSHA recordkeeping and reporting requirements appear straightforward, but the devil is in the details. Pound for pound, obese workers cost you plenty. Here are some facts that should disturb you.
| Which employee health issue costs employers more, obesity or smoking?
If you guessed obesity, you guessed right. A study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine analyzed the additional costs of smoking and obesity among more than 30,000 Mayo Clinic employees and retirees. All had continuous health insurance coverage between 2001 and 2007. Both obesity and smoking were associated with excess health costs. Compared to nonsmokers, average health costs were $1,275 higher for smokers. And obese people averaged an additional $1,850 more than normal-weight individuals. For those with morbid obesity, costs were up to $5,500 per year. Clearly obesity is an issue that most employers will need to deal with in the future. Americans are becoming fatter every year, and that means increasing health problems and increasing health costs. Since many of these obese people work, employers will be impacted by increasing medical costs and lost productivity. Great news! BLR's renowned Safety.BLR.com® website now has even more timesaving features. Take our no-cost site tour! Or better yet, try it at no cost or obligation for a full 2 weeks. Facts and FiguresHere are some other statistics that paint a worrisome picture: • Annual healthcare cost of obesity in the U.S. is estimated to be $147 billion per year. • Annual medical burden of obesity increased to 9.1 percent in 2006 compared to 6.5 percent in 1998. • Medical expenses for an obese employee are estimated to be 42 percent higher than for employees with a healthy weight. • Three major conditions related to obesity (heart disease, diabetes and arthritis) cost employers $220 billion annually in medical cost and lost productivity, according to CDC and MetLife research. • An American Journal of Health Behavior study showed that the annual medical cost increased from $119 for normal-weight employees to $573 for overweight employees and to $620 for obese employees. • A MetLife study found that the average absence for employee who filed an obesity-related short-term disability claim was 45 days. • A 1998 study found obesity resulted in approximately 39 million lost work days, 239 million restricted-activity days, 90 million bed days and 63 million physician visits. • Obese employees have double workers’ compensation claims, 7 times higher medical claims, and lost 10 times more working days from illness or injury compared to non-obese employees, according to the Duke University Medical Center. Who's Obese?Obesity is defined as at least 30 to 40 pounds overweight, severely obese is at least 60 pounds overweight, and morbidly obese is at least 100 pounds overweight. Obesity can increase the risk for many adverse health effects, including: · Type-2 diabetes · Hypertension · Heart failure · High cholesterol · Kidney failure · Degenerative joint disease and arthritis · Gallstones and gall bladder disease · Cancer · Lung and breathing problems (asthma) · Faster aging |
Urgent care visits to soar due to PPACA
July 6, 2012
Source: www.benefitspro.com
Urgent care visits will likely see a considerable boost due to the Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“Although urgent care isn’t specifically mentioned anywhere in the legislation, the open access that all urgent care centers have should make them a natural entry point for the newly insured—especially in areas where many primary care practices aren’t accepting new patients,” says Lou Ellen Horwitz, executive director of Urgent Care Association of America.
The law’s mandate targets the roughly 16 percent of uninsured Americans, equating to another 50 million Americans who could be seeking medical care, Horwitz says.
Urgent care centers, on average, see 342 patient visits per week. This equates to more than160 million patient visits each year. The Supreme Court ruling will drive an increase in volume as these new patients may see urgent cares as an alternative to the emergency room, Horwitz says.
“Fortunately, the industry continues to expand and should have capacity to accept these patients with relative ease in most areas,” she says.
There are about 9,000 urgent care centers in the country, but less “full-fledged” urgent care centers (those offering lab and x-ray, open 7 days a week), at 4,500.
New Guidelines On Obesity Treatment Herald Changes In Coverage
By Michelle Andrews
July 10, 2012
Source: Kaiser Health News
Eat less, exercise more. Simple? Yes. Easy? No. If weight loss were easy, obesity rates among adults in the United States probably wouldn't have reached the current 36 percent.
Recently revised guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force acknowledge that fact. They recommend that clinicians screen patients for obesity, which is defined as having a body mass index of 30 or higher. Further, they say patients who meet or exceed that level should be offered or referred to "intensive, multicomponent behavioral interventions" to help them lose weight.
The revised guidelines strengthen the previous recommendations, says David Grossman, a senior investigator at Group Health Research Institute in Seattle and a member of the task force.
For the millions of people who struggle to lose weight, the new guidelines offer much-needed support. It's unclear whether employers and insurers will welcome the change, though.
Under the 2010 health-care law, new health plans and those whose benefits change enough to lose their grandfathered status must provide services recommended by the Preventive Services Task Force at no cost to members. For the 70 percent of employers that already offer weight management programs, that may mean just supplementing what they already offer, says Russell Robbins, a senior clinical consultant at Mercer, a human resources consulting firm.
But some employers are concerned they may be on the hook for ongoing treatment as employees make repeated attempts to lose weight.
"From a financial standpoint, the guidelines are pretty broad and pretty extensive," says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents the interests of large firms. "Does this mean that employers and the government will be paying for up to 26 intense visits every year for every obese person for the rest of their lives?"
An HHS official said the department is evaluating whether to issue additional guidance on the new rules.
Insurers will be working to determine how best to satisfy the recommendations, says Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.
"I think the real question is making sure there are programs that fulfill these requirements," she says.
According to the task force, effective weight-loss programs involve 12 to 26 group or individual sessions over the course of a year that cover multiple behavioral management techniques. These may include setting weight-loss goals and strategizing about how to maintain lifestyle changes, incorporating exercise and eating a more healthful diet, and learning to address the psychological and other barriers that create roadblocks to weight loss. The task force found that people in these programs generally lost nine to 15 pounds in the first year.
The task force said there wasn't enough evidence to determine whether such interventions worked for people who were overweight but not obese.
A number of existing programs provide the kind of care that the guidelines recommend, say experts.
Weight Watchers, for example, runs 20,000 meetings a week around the country where people discuss their weight-loss challenges and successes and get pointers on losing weight and keeping it off.
At $42.95 a month for access to group meetings and online food tracking and other tools, however, it's not an option for many people with limited incomes, who make up a disproportionate share of the obese. Some employers subsidize their employees' membership in the program. Under the new guidelines, insurers and employers could be responsible for paying 100 percent of the cost.
Other programs have also been successful. Two years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in partnership with UnitedHealth Group and the YMCA, launched the National Diabetes Prevention Program for people at high risk for developing Type 2 diabetes.
The program is based on a study in which participants who learned to eat more healthfully and exercised at least 150 minutes a week lost 5 to 7 percent of their weight and reduced their risk of developing diabetes by 58 percent.
The program is offered by many YMCAs and other groups. It offers each participant 16 weekly group weight-loss sessions followed by six monthly sessions. It's a covered benefit for people with UnitedHealthcare or Medica insurance; others pay based on a sliding scale, says Ann Albright, director of CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation. CDC is working with Medicaid and Medicare to try to get it covered by those programs, says Albright.
John Joseph IV tipped the scales at 203 and had a BMI of 28.3 when he paid $150 to join the program at the YMCA near his Birmingham, Ala., home. In the four months since then, the 34-year-old, who runs a job-coaching business for college grads, has dropped 17 pounds.
At the weekly group meetings, he learned to count the fat grams in food and to make smarter food choices. Now he eats fewer cookies and more flounder. He started an exercise program and runs or lifts weights for 30 minutes three times a week.
"I thought, if I can do this, it will give me the infrastructure and habits so I can get to the mid-170s, which is where I want to be," he says.
Losing weight is hard, but keeping it off may be harder.
In 2009, Gayenell Magwood lost 100 pounds with the help of the weight management center at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.
But after health problems curtailed her exercise routine for a few months, her weight crept up to 170, a gain of nearly 20 pounds. Magwood, 49, who lives in North Charleston and is a researcher in the College of Nursing at MUSC, went through the 15-week program all over again, at a cost of about $600. She lost the weight she had regained.
Before enrolling in the MUSC program, "I'd never once been successful with significant weight loss," she says.
House plans five-hour debate on healthcare repeal, WH warns veto
By Pete Kasperowicz
Source: thehill.com/blogs
The House will hold five hours of debate today and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional.
The House Rules Committee approved a rule late Monday setting out the lengthy debate on a bill that is expected to pass with Republican support, but very little if any Democratic support. The Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, was formally introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday.
Later Monday evening, the White House put out a statement saying President Obama would veto the bill if it were presented for his signature, something that won't happen given Senate opposition.
"The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 6079 because it would cost millions of hard-working middle class families the security of affordable health coverage and care they deserve," the statement said. "It would increase the deficit and detract from the work the Congress needs to do to focus on the economy and create jobs.
"The last thing the Congress should do is refight old political battles and take a massive step backward by repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class, it added. "Right now, the Congress needs to work together to focus on the economy and creating jobs. Congress should act on the President's concrete plans to create an economy built to last by reducing the deficit in a balanced way and investing in education, clean energy, innovation, and infrastructure.
"If the President were presented with H.R. 6079, he would veto it."
Under the rule for the House bill, the House Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means will each control one hour of debate. House Committees on Budget, Judiciary and Small Business will each control 30 minutes.
Finally, Majority Leader Cantor and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and/or their designees will split the last 30 minutes of debate time.
The House is expected to start work on the bill by debating and approving the rule, which will take an hour early this afternoon. A final vote on passage on the bill itself is expected Wednesday.
IFEBP survey: More than 75% of sectors will provide health coverage in 2014
By Marli D. Riggs
July 2, 2012
Source: https://eba.benefitnews.com
Despite the differing reactions among U.S. business sectors to last week’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Supreme Court ruling, 77% of surveyed organizations are very likely to provide health coverage in 2014, according to a recent survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefits Plans.Following the Supreme Court’s decision, almost half (49%) of the organizations are shifting their attention to wellness, while 32% are focusing on consumer-driven health plans, 27% will shift costs to employees and 26% will focus on value-based health care, according to The Supreme Court ACA Decision Reaction Survey.
“We’re not surprised by these findings since our recent wellness survey told us that seven in 10 U.S. employers offer wellness programs,” says Paul Hackleman, IFEBP’s health care and public employer analyst.
Overall, the results were split when respondents identified which Supreme Court decision would have been most beneficial to their organization. The data showed that 46% felt the best possible decision for their organization would have been PPACA being thrown out, while 41% said the best decision was the law being upheld. Another 12% of organizations would have liked the individual mandate overturned, but the remainder of the health care law to stay intact.
Most organizations have been keeping current with the legislative aspects of PPACA and some are already prepared for provisions in the future. Of the respondents 78% are extremely or very far along in terms of complying with current PPACA provisions, while 60% are extremely or very far along with preparing for future provisions.
Further, organizations in states that have already implemented health care exchanges are generally more satisfied with the Court’s decision (47% to 35% of respondents in states that haven’t implemented), and are more prepared with current provisions (47% to 36%) and more likely to continue coverage in 2014 (56% to 42%).
The survey was administered on June 28 to measure organizations’ reactions to the landmark decision. Responses were received from 1,122 plan administrators, trustees and organizational representatives.
Businesses won't wait for elections before implementing health law
By Sam Baker
July 9, 2012
Source: thehilll.com/blogs/healthwatch
Most businesses waited for the Supreme Court before making plans to comply with President Obama’s healthcare law — but most aren’t waiting for November to see whether the law might be repealed.
A new survey from the consulting firm Mercer found that most businesses have not begun planning for requirements that will take effect in 2014, including the mandate requiring employers to provide health benefits to most workers.
Businesses said they were holding off on implementation until they knew whether the Supreme Court would strike down the healthcare law — the same approach many Republican governors have taken. But now that the court has upheld the law, only 16 percent of the employers in Mercer’s survey said they plan to wait for November and the prospect of legislative repeal.
Mercer surveyed 4,000 businesses immediately following the high court’s decision.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the country’s largest small-business organization, joined 26 state attorneys general in filing the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans consistently argue that the law will burden small employers and stifle new hiring.
But only 28 percent of the employers in Mercer’s survey said the new employer mandate will pose a “significant challenge.” The law requires many businesses to offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty for all workers who buy coverage on their own, with help from the federal government.
“Employers with large part-time populations, such as retailers and healthcare organizations, are faced with the difficult choice of either increasing the number of employees eligible for coverage or changing their workforce strategy so that employees work fewer hours,” said David Rahill, president of Mercer’s Health and Benefits business.
How can company policies prevent injury?
Source: https://www.riskandinsurance.com
Implementing, enforcing policies can improve bottom line, study suggests
Prescription drug abuse, texting, and falls by older adults are among the emerging injury threats cited in a new study. It suggests policymakers and others implement and enforce policies to reduce preventable injuries.
More than $400 billion is spent annually in lifetime costs for medical care and lost productivity resulting from injuries. While the report focuses on steps states can take to prevent injuries, the recommendations are also appropriate for employers trying to reduce workers' comp costs and improve their bottom lines.
Injuries are the third-leading cause of deaths nationally, according to the researchers. Among the most common types are:
- Falls. "More than eight million Americans suffer falls that require medical attention each year," it says. One in three people age 65 and older experiences a fall annually, and falls are the leading cause of injury deaths in adults over 65 years of age. Falls can be reduced "by as much as half" among participants involved in exercise programs.
- Violence. Injuries caused by intimate partners alone cause more than 2,000 deaths a year. Nearly three in 10 women and one in 10 men have experienced physical violence, rape, or stalking by a partner.
- Misuse and abuse of prescription drugs. The report notes the dramatic increase in the past decade, saying prescription painkillers are responsible for approximately 15,000 deaths and 475,000 emergency room visits a year.
For employers, injuries mean lost productivity as well as increased workers' comp and health care costs. Adults between the ages of 25 and 44 comprise 30 percent of the U.S. population but account for 44 percent of injury-related productivity losses.
Overall, businesses lose $326 billion in productivity annually due to injuries. Motor vehicle and other road-related accidents are responsible for $75 billion of the total while falls account for $54 billion, and struck by or against costs $37 billion.
"Many injuries are predictable, preventable and controllable," according to the study. "For instance, researchers found that seat belts can greatly reduce the harm caused to individuals in motor vehicle crashes."
The study, The Facts Hurt: A State-by-State Injury Prevention Policy Report, cites research showing seat belts saved an estimated 69,000 lives between 2006 and 2010. However, 18 states do not have primary seat belt laws.
Thirty-one states do not require helmets for all motorcycle riders, although research says they saved an estimated 8,000 lives from 2005 to 2009.
The researchers ranked the states in terms of their injury prevention efforts based on 10 key indicators. They included whether the state has enacted a prescription drug monitoring program, whether it has a primary seat belt law, and whether it requires a helmet for all motorcycle riders.
California and New York received the highest score while Montana and Ohio netted the lowest.
"Millions of injuries could be prevented each year if more states adopted additional research-based prevention policies and if programs were fully implemented and enforced," the report says.
"We could dramatically bring down rates of injuries from motor vehicles, assaults, falls, fires and a range of other risks even more if more states adopted, enforced and implemented proven policies," said Amber Williams, executive director of the Safe States Alliance. Hers was one of several groups that teamed up with the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for the study.