Posts Tagged ‘could’

What could

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

What could

This Could Be Your Grandpa: Indirect Euthanasia Via Health Insurance?

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

A sad story in Miami, Florida regarding health insurance was recently brought to my attention. It highlights the flaws inherent in both public and private health insurance plans, and is an example of why healthcare reform is so important. A friend of mine has an ailing grandfather, named Benito Jimenez. Benito’s daughter, Maria Conroy cares for him 24/7, and has taken charge of navigating the complexities of his insurance coverage. Her 85-year-old father has Medicare, but also has a Medicare Advantage administered by Humana. This would seem like an ideal compromise of the government and corporations, which would allow them to provide the best healthcare possible. Instead, it’s only brought Maria and her family one frustration after another. Benito suffers from various conditions, but his health recently took a turn for the worse. He has developed anemia, which decreases the amount of healthy red blood cells. Severe anemia prevents your body from pumping oxygen everywhere it’s needed, so it’s obviously an urgent concern, especially for senior citizens. His doctors aren’t sure where his internal bleeding is coming from, though Maria suspects that it’s related to a previous stomach ulcer that was caused due to Benito taking a large combination of medications daily. The recommended test is an endoscopy, generally considered a simple and safe procedure (as opposed to a colonoscopy, which is more invasive). Unfortunately, possibly due to Benito’s age, his gastroenterologist–part of his primary care doctor’s “team”–refuses to perform it himself, despite being able and certified to do so–Maria feels that he is most likely scared of a malpractice lawsuit. Maria begged him to allow her to sign a waiver removing his liability, but he refused to take the risk of doing it on an outpatient basis. That gastroenterologist further explained that he would be obligated to do any and all tests necessary to save Benito’s life if he was in a hospital setting. After the gastroenterologist told them to go to the hospital (where the procedure would be performed at a higher cost to them, as well as their health insurance), Maria and Benito were kicked back to their primary care physician. Despite Benito’s hemoglobin level being a very low 8.5, they were told that he wouldn’t be referred to a hospital until his hemoglobin level was 7. She is unclear as to whether the doctor or the insurance company establishes this arbitrary rule. If they had investigated his medical history, a hemoglobin level of 8 had previously sent Benito to the hospital in need of a blood transfusion. In the infinite wisdom of Medicare and Humana’s reimbursement rules, they would not offer preventative treatment until he was in critical condition and needed even more medical care. This runaround was costly for Maria, both financially and emotionally. Benito was prescribed an increasing number of medications to mask his symptoms, but they produced other side effects and exacerbated his main problem (while also resulting in higher co-pays). She felt that the doctors were condescending and were more focused on preventing health insurance fraud than providing care. While Medicare fraud is relatively common, the preventative measures may have backfired. Honest, ethical patients and their loved ones don’t receive the care they need, because they are unaware of the loopholes. For example, a previous cardiologist of Benito’s once referred him to Baptist Hospital in Miami, in order for another specialist to examine him; however, his insurance company wouldn’t pay for a visit to that particular hospital. The cardiologist suggested that he pretend to faint somewhere in close physical proximity to the hospital or in the hospital lobby, so they would be forced to admit him and later discover what he actually needed. This suggestion shocked and dismayed Maria. For too many doctors, the health insurance bureaucracy has changed their caring vocation into an impersonal business. Ideally, healthcare reform would change this, eventhough this story shows an negative example of government involvement in health insurance. The saddest part of Maria’s story is that Benito was present when a cardiologist, that his primary care doctor urged him to consult with, shockingly informed Maria, as if he wasn’t capable of understanding or wasn’t listening, that further investigation would be pointless due to his frail condition–or at least, not enough of a sure thing to avoid the risk of lawsuits. They indirectly, but essentially told her, in front of him, that he should go home, medicate the symptoms and wait to die. Again, their fear of malpractice judgments and desire to bill Humana and the federal government (thereby making up for decreased funding that cut reimbursement rates) for as many procedures as possible overtook their oath to “do no harm”. It seems as though they prefer to wait until someone is in critical condition to provide preventative care, which results in their needing even more medical care. Meanwhile, Benito’s condition was far from terminal. A previous gastroenterologist agreed to perform an outpatient procedure, but his insurance was only willing to cover the specialist recommended by his primary care doctor. As opposed to working together for the benefit of the patient, that doctor steered them to the uncooperative gastroenterologist described above. Since the outcome was unsuccessful, Maria eventually managed to get her father’s initial gastroenterologist covered under his health insurance plan; however, the delay was detrimental to his care. Benito’s anemia is now critical: this lessens the chances of success of an outpatient endoscopy and might mean that he’ll need a hospital stay, after all. In Maria’s own words, the health insurance industry has enacted its own “cash for clunkers” program. Only in this case, the so-called “clunkers” are older Americans being sent to the junkyard. There’s a lot of fault to go around: Medicare stretches its budget to the limit and has bureaucrats making coverage decisions, while for-profit insurers like Humana have CEOs and shareholders that also demand a reduction in costs. The patients themselves–our parents, grandparents, siblings, children, partners, and friends–are lost in the midst this battle, even though they should be the most important factor of all. Some opponents of the public option claim that it will lead to the forced euthanasia of seniors, while others believe those claims are overblown. Nevertheless, indirect euthanasia is already happening right now; this is a case in point. Healthcare reform is a complicated issue, and it’s deeper than greater availability of affordable health insurance. That won’t matter if, after paying premiums and/or taxes for decades, your insurance won’t give you the care you need most. I don’t claim to know what proposal will work best, but Maria says that the current system is broken and that we urgently need healthcare reform of some kind. “Everybody doesn’t have a family member to be an advocate,” she adds. “I worry about how many elderly people fall through the cracks without someone to find the loopholes to work the system for them.”

Shop Around, Savvy Capitalists: Texas Could Save Big On Healthcare

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Texans could save up to eighty percent on certain medical bills if they play their cards right, according to several publications released over the past few years. A typical American family of four is expected to receive $14,500 worth of medical care this year, and an insured family will pay an average of over a third of that — $5,100 — on their own. That’s eight percent higher than last year. With out-of-pocket expenses rising at least eight percent every year since 2000, it’s no wonder over 46 million Americans are going without health insurance — including over one-quarter of Texans.
In fact, according to John Holahan, Allison Cook, and Lisa Dubay of the Urban Institute, co-authors of Characteristics of the Uninsured: Who Is Eligible for Public Coverage and Who Needs Help Affording Coverage? released by the Kaiser Family Foundation, fifty-six percent of the uninsured are ineligible for public programs, but still need help to make typical health insurance plans affordable. Seventy-six percent of parents lacking health coverage are in working families, and 900,000 uninsured children are ineligible for public assistance-based coverage due to family income. Finding a way to make health care even slightly more affordable could be the difference in whether or not someone receives care.
According to the Commonwealth Fund, a private, non-partisan foundation supporting independent research on health and social issues, in 2005, thirty percent of the millions in the U.S. who lacked health insurance were between the ages of nineteen and twenty-nine. Texas had the worst record overall, with twenty-five percent of its total population going unprotected. The state actually failed to insure even more of its young adults — twenty-seven percent. Improving this statistic, as well as establishing ways for patients to pay at least part of their expenses, could be especially pertinent for cities like Dallas, Houston, and Austin, where facilities are financially overwhelmed by the uninsured.
Children are more likely to be eligible for public assistance-based coverage than their parents — and therefore more likely to qualify for help with medical expenses. This is because most states set family income limits for minors higher than for their parents. For instance, the majority of states will cover children if their families make 200% of the federal poverty level (though current policies are under dispute) — sometimes more — but many will only insure parents if that income level is at, or below, federal poverty level standards. Only twenty-eight percent of uninsured parents are actually eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, whereas three-quarters of uninsured children would qualify for those programs under current policies.
A study commissioned by the Kaiser Family Foundation and authored by Jack Hadley of the Urban Institute states that “the uninsured receive less care and have worse outcomes following an accident or onset of a new chronic condition than those with insurance.” This is mostly due to cost. Albeit seemingly somewhat anti-intuitive, an extremely helpful trick is to treat health care costs like any other bill — shop around, bargain, and don’t be afraid to ask for breaks. The following tips are summarized from the Prevention article, “Health care For Less” by Julian Kesner.
(1) Shop Around For Labs
Compare different labs’ prices. Almost any lab can complete a basic blood analysis, for instance, but they won’t all charge the same. To streamline the process, obtain the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, a universally accepted number that corresponds to every billable medical service, and start asking around. The American Medical Association’s website, www.ama-assn.org, provides a free search engine for CPT codes.
Independent labs are cropping up in response to the high cost of health care, so investigate those, too; some of them charge up to seventy-five percent less than non-independent facilities. The site www.MyMedLab.com, with over 3,000 independent lab listings, is a good source with which to start your research. Just make sure the facilities are legal in your state — sorry residents of California, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island — and check with your doctor to make sure they’re of good caliber.
(2) Negotiate Your Hospital Bills
Here is something most hospitals won’t tell you: very few of their medical bills are paid in full. Insurance companies often negotiate charges and receive discounts — up to two-thirds of the bill — based on their contracts. If they can haggle, why can’t you? Especially if whatever you owe is a financial hardship — be it from deductibles, co-pays, or the full cost of services if uninsured — medical facilities will usually work with patients to make sure a solution is reached.
“The number of payers, including patients and insurance plans, who pay hospitals 100% of our charges is probably less than two percent,” said Ruth Levin, the vice-president for managed care at Continuum Health Partners in New York City.
Financial assistance programs associated with hospitals may also be useful.
(3) Make Sure You Aren’t Tested Twice Or Come In When It’s Not Necessary
According to a recent survey from the Commonwealth Fund, seventeen percent of adults report that their doctors have ordered duplicate tests. This is especially likely when a specialist is involved, as he or she may not have received the results of previous labs. Sign out x-rays and other labs from your primary care office, and bring them along. With the shortage of family doctors in this country, they’re often extremely busy and can’t always be counted on to forward results to another physician. Considering that a co-payment or deductible is almost always involved with lab tests, this could save a bundle.
Also, make sure in-office follow-up visits are necessary. It’s standard procedure to ask a patient to return after the results of a certain test or undergoing particular procedures, but a phone call may suffice. It never hurts to ask.
(4) Be Savvy With Prescription Drugs
Cheaper and generic drugs can cost up to seventy-five percent less. Ask your doctor if a cheaper alternative to your medication is available, or — even better — if there’s a generic version.
“Just be sure your doctor is intimately familiar with the benefits and risks of the alternate drugs for your condition,” warned Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D. and professor at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Shopping for drugs online is becoming increasingly popular, and with due cause. Large distributors often offer lower prices, as well as saving their clients the time and expense of visiting the local drug store. The website, www.Rxaminer.com, offers price comparisons and has a reputation for independence from special interest groups.
Try splitting pills, as well. Prescriptions are often based on the number of units per bottle, not necessarily on the actual dosage. If getting eighty milligram pills, instead of forty, for a refillable prescription and then splitting them in two is more economical, ask your doctor about it. This won’t be appropriate for all medications, of course, but if it is, you’ve just saved fifty percent.
(5) Barter
Hey, doctors need plumbing and massage services, too. If you have a service you feel may be useful to a physician, try bartering. You just never know.
(6) Negotiate With Your Doctor
Hopefully, doctors are in their profession because they’re compassionate. If you can’t make your co-payments and deductibles, ask him or her to work with you on the bill. Offering cash upfront for services may also be fruitful — either in exchange for the full cost of the bill, or for co-payments and deductibles you know you won’t be able to meet. Paying upfront often produces a situation that’s less of a hassle for physicians, anyway, as they will deal with fewer administrative and paperwork issues.
“They are the ones who can direct their billing department to give the patient a break,” said Levin.
(7) Hire An Advocate
Try hiring an advocate to help you deal with financial disputes when all else fails. Companies like Healthcare Advocates, Inc., based in Philadelphia, charges by the case — anywhere from fifty to four hundred dollars. Like it or not, even when you have insurance, you are responsible for whatever bills remain unpaid, and refusing to deal with outstanding balances may ruin your credit. Just make sure the flat-rate charge is worth what you think will be saved by hiring the intermediary.
(8) Get Individual Health Insurance
If you are uninsured, take the time to research an affordable policy that offers reasonable coverage. This may even make sense if you have an individual health insurance policy you are not pleased with due to high cost and/or poor benefits. An individual plan actually may be a better option for you than group health insurance at work, depending on how much your employer pays, and how well your dependents are covered.
Searching online is becoming an increasingly popular option, and often yields results. If you know you can afford something, but just haven’t wanted the hassle of looking, do it anyway! It may save you thousands in the end, as well as your health.

Medicare’s infusion payments could shift care to hospitals: moving target.: An article from: Family Practice News

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Product Description
This digital document is an article from Family Practice News, published by International Medical News Group on May 1, 2004. The length of the article is 661 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Medicare’s infusion payments could shift care to hospitals: moving target.(Practice Trends)
Author: Mary Ellen Schneider
Publication: Family Practice News (Magazine/Journal)
Date: May 1, 2004
Publisher: International Medical News Group
Volume: 34 Issue: 9 Page: 96(1)

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Medicare’s infusion payments could shift care to hospitals: moving target.: An article from: Family Practice News

Health-care bill passed 60-39 could mirror Canadian style rationing system

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

The health-care bill, which is President Obama’s top domestic priority, would extend insurance to about 30 million people who now lack it, expand the reach of Medicaid for the poor, and impose new rules on health insurance companies. It would cost about $871 billion over 10 years, but raise more than that in new taxes and fees and cuts in Medicare. Democrats win the vote 60-39 over Republican objections.With the economy struggling to break the chains of a job-destroying recession. Under Obama-care, Americans will be forced to buy government-approved health insurance and anyone earning a middle class wage will have to pay for it out of their own pocket. Federal subsidies will only be provided for people who are not offered coverage by their employer and earn below the 400 percent poverty level. Families whose employers drop their plan will be forced to buy it on their own – at a cost of over $15,000 dollars a year. “The Senate health care bill gives employers two powerful incentives to stop offering health insurance coverage to their workers,” writes Terry Jeffrey“First, if an employer does offer coverage, its lower-wage workers will lose the federal insurance subsidy they would otherwise get.Secondly, if an employer does not offer coverage, the $750-per-worker fine it faces will be far less than the premiums it would pay if it did offer coverage.”Families struggling in this deep recession who earn a combined total greater than $88,200 and don’t have their health care covered by their employer will be hit with a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the final Senate health-care bill.There is nothing voluntary about Obama’s health-care mandate:The Senate has dismissed concerns over the individual insurance mandate and the tax penalty imposed on those who don’t meet that requirement. If you refuse to pay the penalty or you refuse to provide any information on your health-care status on your tax return, you will face the prospect of being audited by the Internal Revenue Service. This is supposedly a “voluntary mandate” and the IRS can’t do anything against you if you refuse to pay the penalty. They claim that because page 340 (A) and (B) of the bill waives criminal prosecution of taxpayers and says that no liens or levies can be filed on the taxpayer’s property. That claim is wrong.Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) itself made clear that the financing of health-care reform is based in substantial part on generating $167 billion in “penalty payments” from individual taxpayers and employers.The IRS, which is known for its habit of disregarding court decisions that disagree with its interpretations of the law, may use audits and the ability to find problems in a taxpayer’s finances in areas totally unrelated to the health care mandate to force compliance with the mandate and coerce payment of the tax penalty imposed by Reid’s bill. according to The Heritage Foundation, The very idea of using the taxing powers of the state to force compliance with this law is one that should shock the conscience of everyone, even those who support “reforming” our health care system.Obama’s answer to the question posed by George Stephanopoulosin an interview,  “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money [to buy insurance], fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?’’“George,’’ chided Obama, “the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary . . . indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.’’Merriam-Webster’s definition of “tax’’ – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.’’One place to look to see what the universal coverage would do is the state of Massachusetts, about 200,000 state taxpayers remained uninsured in the beginning year of 2008, it hasn’t made insurance more affordable, Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. It rose by 7.4 percent in 2007, 8-12 percent in 2008 and will expect to rise 9 percent this year who knows what 2010 will bring, according to Jeff Jacoby who’s article entitled Mandatory insurance: Yes, it’s a tax, addresses the promise Obama’s made not to raise taxes on any American family earning less than $230,000 a year, contradicts that by supporting legislation that would force every American to carry health insurance or pay a hefty penalty to the IRS.Some of the taxes that will be imposed on the public under the new health-care bill that has people taken back with concern: according to H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.Section 1501 – Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage – Individuals will be required to maintain health insurance. Those that do not will be assessed an annual tax penalty of $750. The tax penalty is scheduled to escalate in subsequent years. Consequently, Massachusetts residents that do not maintain health insurance will be assessed a tax at both the state and federal level.Section 9001 – Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage – This provision levies an excise tax of 40 percent for any health coverage plan that is costs over $8,500 per year for single coverage and $23,000 per year for family coverage. Since this was protested vigorously by unions and public employees, the Senate caved and granted a massive concession. The tax is not levied on the individual receiving the tax free benefit, but is levied on the insurance company or plan administrators that provide the employee the benefit. How absurd is that?Section 9008 – Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers – This piece of the legislation imposes a $2.3 billion excise tax on the pharmaceutical industry. The tax is allocated across the industry and is based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed. These companies will still be required to pay their federal income taxes.Section 9009 – Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers – This section imposes a $2 billion excise tax on the medical device industry. The fee is allocated across the industry based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed.Section 9010 – Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers – Another excise tax. This one is assessed on the health insurance industry in the amount of $6.7 billion taxed out and is also based on market share. How can the imposition of $11 billion in excise taxes (section 9008, 9009 and 9010) on the health care industry reduce costs to consumers? Does anyone else suspect these companies will have to pass these costs over to consumers?Section 9013 – Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses – For those incurring significant medical costs, your ability to deduct these expenses will be decreased. This legislation increases the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction from 7.5 percent to 10 percent.Section 9015 – Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers – This increases the Medicare tax on wages by 0.50 percent on individuals making in excess of $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000. This will be effective starting January 1, 2013. (As a side note, individual income taxes are already scheduled to increase in 2011, with the highest rate already increasing by 4.6 percent. This will be in addition to the tax increase as outlined here in Section 9015.)”Average premiums per policy in the non-group market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal,” according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO).

FHA hospital mortgage insurance program health care trends and portfolio concentration could affect program stability : report to congressional committees

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

FHA hospital mortgage insurance program health care trends and portfolio concentration could affect program stability : report to congressional committees

Even if health bill passes soon, wait for reforms could be long

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

The White House has a message for Americans suffering under today’s health insurance system: “Help is on the way.” But not as fast as you might think.Measured against the promises President Obama and congressional Democrats have made about health-care reform, the bill the Senate begins debating this week could be setting Americans up for disappointment: Some of the main reforms would not take place for several years, and even when they do, some observers say, the bill does too little to make sure they would be enforced.Until 2014, insurance companies could continue to deny coverage or charge higher premiums based on people’s medical history. Another highly touted reform — banning annual and lifetime limits on coverage — would take effect in 2010, but it would permit significant exceptions. Even with those rules in place, “there’s no power to really hold the insurance companies accountable,” said consumer advocate Betty Ahrens, executive director of the Iowa Citizen Action Network. “It’s toothless.”Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said the bill was a compromise. “This is not the legislation we would have written in a perfect world, but Senator Reid believes that this bill has the best chance possible to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster,” Manley said.The delay in implementing some key reforms contrasts with the urgency of Obama’s call for action.Although some changes might take years to implement, Obama said in July, “We shouldn’t have to wait a long time to make sure that people don’t lose their insurance because of a preexisting condition.”Delaying relief until 2014 means that Obama could face reelection — and Congress be transformed by two elections — before voters begin feeling the legislation’s full effect.It would also reduce the cost of the bill during the 10-year budget window measured by the Congressional Budget Office.Deferred until 2014 would be a federal mandate that everyone buy insurance, subsidies to help people with lower incomes pay for it, and the creation of marketplaces called exchanges, in which individuals and small businesses could comparison-shop for health plans.The bill would offer interim relief for some people with preexisting conditions by creating a temporary insurance plan just for them, but only people who have been uninsured for six months could join. White House health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said the president was moving as quickly as possible. She said that the insurance industry cannot be forced to accept people irrespective of preexisting conditions until everyone is required to have insurance, and that the administration does not want such a requirement until the exchanges are up and running. A close reading of the bill reveals other surprises, like the section titled “No lifetime or annual limits,” which is intended to protect people from huge out-of-pocket expenses.Where annual benefits are concerned, the Senate bill bans only “unreasonable” limits. What that means is not spelled out; a Senate aide said the Treasury Department would set the standard.In addition, the bill says that certain health plans could continue to use annual and lifetime limits. As Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, interprets it, those potentially exempt from the ban include companies that self-insure, meaning they pay employee health benefits out of their own coffers, and businesses with more than 100 employees. Further, the prohibition on lifetime and annual limits applies only to limits “on the dollar value of benefits.”In the past, health plans have gotten around restrictions measured in dollars. In 1996, Congress passed a law that said employers could not set lower dollar limits on mental health coverage than on medical and surgical coverage. Many employers responded by adopting tighter limits on the number of mental health outpatient visits or hospital days, according to testimony the Government Accountability Office gave in 2000. Congress finally closed that loophole in 2008.In this bill, the Senate majority leader avoided an absolute ban on annual limits because that could drive up premiums, said a Reid aide who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. While a low annual dollar limit might be unreasonable, an annual limit of three attempts at in vitro fertilization might be reasonable, the aide said.What’s more, enforcement of the bill’s new federal insurance rules would generally be the responsibility of state regulators. With some exceptions, the federal government would step in to police private insurers only if it determined a state was not doing the job.”Unless an administration is in place in 2014 that is deeply committed to pushing recalcitrant states aside and taking direct action, it is likely that the reforms may never be implemented adequately throughout the country,” Jost wrote in a recent blog post.The government has used a similar “federal fallback” model to enforce other landmark health-care legislation, and a congressional committee found that insurance abuses festered.At issue is the practice known as rescission, in which insurers revoke policies after policyholders become severely ill or injured. To avoid paying big medical bills, insurers search policyholders’ original applications for grounds to cancel the policies, such as failure to disclose preexisting conditions.A 1996 federal law called HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, prohibited rescissions unless consumers defrauded the insurer or deliberately misrepresented their medical condition. But the federal agency responsible “has done nothing to enforce those rights or to ensure that states do so,” Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said in a hearing last year.An official testifying for the agency, Abby L. Block, confirmed that it had taken no enforcement action. She said her hands were tied unless it appeared that a state was not “substantially enforcing” the federal requirements.Despite the HIPAA standard, most states have allowed rescissions even if policyholders’ misrepresentations were accidental, the staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported this year.Now, Congress is trying to do something about it again. The Senate bill reaffirms that insurers cannot rescind coverage unless the policyholder made a fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation.If the bill is passed, that reform would take effect in 2010.

High-deductible health insurance: could health savings accounts hurt hospitals?: An article from: Internal Medicine News

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Product Description
This digital document is an article from Internal Medicine News, published by International Medical News Group on May 1, 2004. The length of the article is 469 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: High-deductible health insurance: could health savings accounts hurt hospitals?(Practice Trends)
Author: Joyce Frieden
Publication: Internal Medicine News (Magazine/Journal)
Date: May 1, 2004
Publisher: International Medical News Group
Volume: 37 Issue: 9 Page: 86(1)

Distributed by Thomson Gale

High-deductible health insurance: could health savings accounts hurt hospitals?: An article from: Internal Medicine News

Study: universal coverage could reduce health disparities.: An article from: National Catholic Reporter

Monday, July 30th, 2007

Product Description
This digital document is an article from National Catholic Reporter, published by National Catholic Reporter on May 15, 2009. The length of the article is 376 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Study: universal coverage could reduce health disparities.(NATION)(health insurance coverage)
Author: Paul Kleyman
Publication: National Catholic Reporter (Magazine/Journal)
Date: May 15, 2009
Publisher: National Catholic Reporter
Volume: 45 Issue: 15 Page: 8(1)

Distributed by Gale, a part of Cengage Learning

Study: universal coverage could reduce health disparities.: An article from: National Catholic Reporter