<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: affordable care act</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'affordable care act'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22affordable+care+act%22&t=%22affordable+care+act%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:35:16 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>A New Look at Healthcare Access</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5181790&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FFSpBgAwfDVs%2F</link>
            <description>By Mary Grealy. When we talk about people who don’t have access to healthcare, there’s a natural assumption that it’s because they can’t afford it.  A new study shows that’s not necessarily the case.
According to the study published in the journal Health Services Research, 21 percent of American adults said they had delayed care for non-financial reasons compared to 19 percent that cited cost as the primary reason for not seeking healthcare.
Those non-financial reasons included not being able to get to a doctor’s office during working hours, long commutes to the medical office, or not being able to get an appointment soon enough.  As the study’s lead author said, “In reality, there are all kinds of reasons why people can’t get the care they need when they need it.”
Th...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5181790</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:16:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5181790</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Constitutional Structure Matters: A Response to Larry Tribe</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5174599&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1CUaz70JSQk%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroSCOTUSblog&amp;#8217;s symposium on the constitutionality of Obamacare &amp;#8212; to which I contributed, as did Bob Levy &amp;#8211; provides a glimpse at the astonishing views of the law&amp;#8217;s supporters.  It particularly shows how divorced the legal academy&amp;#8217;s leading lights are not only from basic constitutional text and structure, but from jurisprudential reality.
Most prominently, in responding to the Eleventh Circuit’s decision striking down the individual mandate (and to Richard Epstein&amp;#8217;s symposium essay), storied Harvard professor Laurence H. Tribe criticizes the court for “reflecting what appears to be a widely held public sentiment” that Congress cannot “mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase o...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5174599</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:45:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5174599</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Pros And Cons Of IPAB And Why It Shouldn’t Be Repealed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5130748&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-pros-and-cons-of-ipab-and-why-it-shouldnt-be-repealed%2F2011.08.15</link>
            <description>In recent weeks, several Democrats and some health reform advocates including the AMA have joined Republicans in calling for a repeal of provisions in the new health law that create the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). For these people, IPAB represents the worst aspects of the new law–an unelected, centralized planning authority empowered by government to make decisions about the peoples’ health care. Arbitrary cuts to providers, short-sighted decisions that stifle innovation and rationing of care are sure to follow, they claim.
While it’s true that the rules governing IPAB are flawed and should be fixed, eliminating IPAB altogether would be a mistake. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at Pizaazz* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5130748</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:00:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5130748</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bad Language: Words One Patient Won’t Use (and Hopes You Won’t Either)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5107509&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fstevereads.com%2Fpapers_to_read%2Funcertainty_and_the_welfare_economics_of_medical_care.pdf</link>
            <description>The following is a post by Dr. Jessie Gruman from the Center for Advancing Health. This blog post was originally published at Prepared Patient Forum: What It Takes Blog. 
“There is a better way – structural reforms that empower patients with greater choices and increase the role of competition in the health-care marketplace.” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)August 3, 2011
The highly charged political debates about reforming American health care have provided tempting opportunities to rename the people who receive health services.  But because the impetus for this change has been prompted by cost and quality concerns of health care payers, researchers and policy experts rather than emanating from us out of our own needs, some odd words have been called into service.  Two phrases commonly used ...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5107509</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:28:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5107509</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Unprecedented Expansion of Federal Power</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5096163&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAOgPxXQoppA%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroThat&amp;#8217;s how I describe the individual mandate in my contribution to SCOTUSblog&amp;#8216;s online symposium on Obamacare, which Trevor Burrus has already highlighted.  Here&amp;#8217;s an excerpt:
All the Obamacare legal challenges boil down to Congress’s authority – or lack thereof – to require people to buy private insurance.  Although unfortunately not dispositive of modern judicial decisions, the text of the Constitution demands that the Supreme Court strike down the individual mandate as an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.  Finding the mandate constitutional would be the first interpretation of the Commerce Clause to permit the regulation of inactivity – in effect requiring an individual to engage in an economi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5096163</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:00:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5096163</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Than a Spreadsheet</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5096193&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FN-g7Cqy56zw%2F</link>
            <description>By Robin Strongin. In the 1993 movie Dave, the temp agency owner posing as the President of the United States (if you haven’t seen the film, just trust me on this) is determined to come up with the funding to save a federal homeless shelter program.  Gathering all of the cabinet officials together with pencils, legal pads and calculators, they brainstorm different wasteful programs that can be cut, totaling numbers as they go, until they come up with the necessary $350 million.
A bit of Hollywood silly escapism?  No doubt.  But, you can say this for President Dave and his fictional cabinet.  At least they approached the budget process with a constructive purpose and vision.
We can only hope that the same holds true for the supercommittee, the panel of 12 Senators and Representatives ...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5096193</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:36:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5096193</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Institute Of Medicine Suggests 8 New Preventive Services To Improve Women’s Health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5069477&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Finstitute-of-medicine-suggests-8-new-preventive-services-to-improve-womens-health%2F2011.07.26</link>
            <description>Eight preventive health services for women should be added to the services that health plans will cover at no cost to patients under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, according to a report by the Institute of Medicine.
The recommendations encompass diseases and conditions that are more common or more serious in women than in men. They are based on existing guidelines and an assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of different preventive services. They include:
1) screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women between 24 and 28 weeks and at the first prenatal visit for women at high risk for diabetes,
2) adding high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing in addition to conventional cytology testing in women with normal cytology results starting at age 30, ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5069477</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5069477</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Can History Tell Us About Healthcare In America?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5036230&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fwhat-can-history-tell-us-about-healthcare-in-america%2F2011.07.17</link>
            <description>Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity…The poor have more sickness, but they get less medical care. People who live in rural areas do not get the same amount or quality of medical attention as those who live in our cities. 
The above quote wasn’t taken from an Obama administration policy proposal. These words are from a 1945 speech by President Harry Truman. It is astonishing that over 60 years later, the health care crisis is not only still with us, but is slowly smothering us. How many years of oxygen do we have left until health care in America is entirely asphy...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5036230</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5036230</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Employers Are Dropping Healthcare Insurance Coverage</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4975869&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmore-employers-are-dropping-healthcare-insurance-coverage%2F2011.06.26</link>
            <description>McKinsey Quarterly has reported its survey concluding there will be a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored health benefits (ESI) as a result of President Obama’s following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Healthcare insurance rates have already skyrocketed as a result of anticipating the conditions of Obama care. President Obama has been powerless to do anything about the increases.
Thirty percent (30%) of companies providing ESI to their employees will drop healthcare insurance coverage once Obama care takes effect in 2014.
The survey included 1300 employers providing ESI across industries, geographies, and employer sizes. Other surveys have found that as we get closer to 2014, President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act will provoke a much greater number of employers t...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4975869</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:00:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4975869</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medical Students Deterred From Primary Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4968492&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmedical-students-deterred-from-primary-care%2F2011.06.25</link>
            <description>Primary care physicians are getting paid more, two surveys agree, while hospital employment is rising.
Internists earned $205,379 in median compensation in 2010, an increase of 4.21% over the previous year, reported the Medical Group Management Association&amp;#8217;s (MGMA&amp;#8217;s) Physician Compensation and Production Survey: 2011 Report Based on 2010 Data. Family practitioners (without obstetrics) reported median compensation of $189,402. Pediatric/adolescent medicine physicians earned $192,148 in median compensation, an increase of 0.39% since 2009.
Among specialists, anesthesiologists reported decreased compensation, as did gastroenterologists and radiologists. Psychiatrists, dermatologists, neurologists and general surgeons reported an increase in median compensation since 2009.
Regional...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4968492</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4968492</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My First Year Battling Obamacare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4934119&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FzYWU6uQ_uAY%2F</link>
            <description>This article chronicles the (first) year I spent opposing the constitutionality of Obamacare: Between debates, briefs, op-eds, blogging, testimony, and media, I have spent well over half of my time since the legislation’s enactment on attacking Congress’s breathtaking assertion of federal power in this context. Braving transportation snafus, snowstorms, and Eliot Spitzer, it’s been an interesting ride. And so, weaving legal arguments into first-person narrative, I hope to add a unique perspective to an important debate that goes to the heart of this nation’s founding principles. The individual mandate is Obamacare’s highest-profile and perhaps most egregious constitutional violation because the Supreme Court has never allowed – Congress has never claimed – the power to requir...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4934119</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:06:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4934119</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Righting wrongs to reduce medical errors</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4921413&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FQeyJQ0P52KI%2F</link>
            <description>Anna Gawlinski
The following is a guest post by: Anna Gawlinski, RN, DNSc, FAAN, Director, Research and Evidence-Based Practice and Adjunct Professor at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and UCLA School of Nursing and Elizabeth Henneman, PhD, RN, Assistant Professor at The School of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.


It’s easy to criticize the current state of our health care system. All over the place, even outside of Washington DC, people are talking left and right (politically, that is) when they should be talking right and wrong (care, that is). But, one important talking point that’s almost always left out of the equation is our role, the role of the nurse. Or more specifically, the critical care nurse whose job it is to save you or your family members’ lives...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4921413</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:02:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4921413</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Plaintiffs Should Be Cautiously Optimistic about Latest Obamacare Appeal</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4893419&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FnXbjPkLiTjY%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroCINCINNATI &amp;#8212; Now for something completely different, and not just because the spirited Sixth Circuit judges were much more skeptical of the government&amp;#8217;s position than the Fourth Circuit was last month. Unlike the panel in Richmond &amp;#8212; Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli probably started outlining his cert petition as soon as court adjourned &amp;#8212; here there will be at least one vote to strike down the individual mandate, and maybe even all three. And this panel should produce one or more opinions in which there will be much for the Supreme Court to grapple with.
The appellate argument didn&amp;#8217;t even begin until after a skirmish over standing provoked by the motion to dismiss the government filed last week. That mini-argument &amp;#8212; what Judge Marti...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4893419</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:19:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4893419</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congresswoman Schwartz Wins USA Today Face-Off</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4872084&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2F-PNnvtaDT_A%2F</link>
            <description>By Mary Grealy. It wasn’t a head-to-head battle, as such, but Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) squared off against the USA Today editorial board yesterday on the subject of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and I believe the lawmaker clearly made the better arguments.
USA Today’s editorial made the point that the IPAB, created as part of the Affordable Care Act to curb Medicare costs, is essential to do the job that Congress won’t in cutting program spending.  The newspaper compared the new board to the base closing commission that successfully shuttered unneeded military installations.
That’s a dubious argument, though, at best.  The base closing commission carefully studied the value and usefulness of military bases before choosing which ones could be closed w...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4872084</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 13:00:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4872084</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supporting Primary Care Has Become A Partisan Issue</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4862547&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fsupporting-primary-care-has-become-a-partisan-issue%2F2011.05.25</link>
            <description>You’d think that ensuring that there will be enough primary care doctors would not become a partisan issue. If you are a Republican congressman from Texas, or a Democratic Senator from California, you’d want your constituents to have access to a primary care doctor, right?

Apparently not: in the hyper-polarized and ideological world in which we now live, even modest steps to support primary care have been caught up in the worst kind of partisanship. The Washington Post reported recently that funding for a new expert commission authorized by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was to examine barriers to careers in primary care, has been blocked by Republicans:
“When the government set out to help 32 million more Americans gain health insurance, Congress and the Obama administration...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4862547</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4862547</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Denies Expedited Obamacare Review</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4747598&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FmI-WS98fJEs%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroThat the Supreme Court declined to take up the Obamacare litigation before even a single appellate court had ruled on it is neither surprising nor game-changing.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli&amp;#8217;s cert petition, whatever its merits (which were several), was a long-shot to begin with as a matter of practice and procedure.  Cato, like all other interested parties, has continued filing briefs in and commenting on the various cases on appeal around the country. 
The only noteworthy point here is that Justice Elena Kagan apparently participated in the consideration of the petition, which indicates that she won&amp;#8217;t be recused when one of these cases does hit the Court.  This too isn&amp;#8217;t terribly surprising: I&amp;#8217;m still digging through the documents reg...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4747598</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:55:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4747598</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ONC opens comments on federal HIT strategic plan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4636523&amp;cid=t_368121_113_f&amp;fid=34625&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhealthit.hhs.gov%2Fportal%2Fserver.pt%2Fdocument%2F954074%2Ffederal_hit_strategic_plan_public_comment_period</link>
            <description>The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology today opened a four-week comment period on proposed revisions to the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (pdf). Last updated in 2008, the plan spells out ONC&amp;#8217;s strategy for meeting national health IT goals for the five-year period beginning in 2011. The HITECH Act requires this revision.
According to a blog post by national coordinator Dr. David Blumenthal:
Some components of the Plan may already be familiar, including the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record Incentive Programs and the grant programs created by the HITECH Act, which are creating an infrastructure to support meaningful use. However, the Plan also charts new ground for the federal health IT agenda:

In Goal I, the health information exchang...</description>
            <author>Neil Versel's Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4636523</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:29:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4636523</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Implementing Health Reform: Playing the Waiting Game</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4631477&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.house.gov%2Fenergycommerce%2Fppacacon.pdf</link>
            <description>The following is a guest post by Nicole Sweeny, originally posted on Policy Mic on March 22nd. 
By Nicole Sweeny. In October 2010, seven months after the passage of health reform, hundreds of health care industry stakeholders gathered in an overcrowded conference room at the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services. They were all eagerly waiting to give their input on one of the most buzzworthy provisions of health reform: the Accountable Care Organization. Implemented by Section 3022 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Accountable Care Organizations, or “ACOs,” are vaguely defined as groups of providers that will manage all aspects of care for the Medicare beneficiaries assigned to them (seniors over the age of 65 are eligible for Medicare). ACOs will have to meet q...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4631477</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:45:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4631477</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>If It’s Evitable, I Don’t Like It!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4626872&amp;cid=t_368121_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2F24%2Fif-its-evitable-i-dont-like-it%2F</link>
            <description>Situationist Contributor Aaron Kay as well as Peter A. Ubel and Gavan Fitzsimons wrote the following editorial for the Detroit Free Press.:
This week it will be one year since President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. Despite all the controversy that preceded the bill’s passage, most health policy experts confidently predicted that the public would soon embrace the legislation.
To back up these predictions, they pointed out that Medicare was quite controversial when it was established in the 1960s, but rapidly grew in popularity. Much the same happened more recently with Medicare Part D, the law championed by President George W. Bush to extend Medicare coverage to medications.
Recent polls belie these predictions, however, as support for health care reform has...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4626872</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:01:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4626872</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Happy Birthday to You</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4615377&amp;cid=t_368121_136_f&amp;fid=39025&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Feverythingchangesbook%2F%7E3%2F0IrLIYCjmKw%2Faffordable-care-act-on-year-anniversary</link>
            <description>Everything Changes is throwing a 1-year-old birthday party for the Affordable Care Act. Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know what’s in the bill &amp;#8211; you&amp;#8217;re not alone. Our big, broken health care system needed a fabulous new makeover; the changes are welcome, yet complex.
I’ve made a cliff notes version of the main parts of the bill, broken into four bite-sized categories. I’ll be posting new categories all this week. Today’s is Freedom to Access Care. Please read, check back, and share the info with your friends and families so we can all better understand and celebrate our new healthcare freedoms and rights.
PART 1:  FREEDOM TO ACCESS CARE!
Caps
No more caps. Insurers can’t set dollar limits on your lifetime benefits coverage, no exceptions. Annual benefits caps ...</description>
            <author>Everything Changes</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4615377</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:44:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4615377</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More reasons why CMS needs Berwick</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4615222&amp;cid=t_368121_113_f&amp;fid=34625&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FNeilVerselsHealthcareItBlog%2F%7E3%2FPH-LM6dEKO4%2F</link>
            <description>On Jan. 28, Ron Pollack, executive director of the liberal advocacy group Families USA, introduced President Obama at a Families USA event by saying, &amp;#8220;Numerous presidents over many decades tried to secure health reform legislation that would move us toward high-quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans. You, Mr. President, actually achieved it.&amp;#8221;
The crowd ate it up.
During the contentious debate over health reform in 2009 and 2010, countless lobbyists, pundits and politicians touted &amp;#8220;quality healthcare&amp;#8221; as a reason to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Some called for the same &amp;#8220;Cadillac&amp;#8221; health plans that members of Congress provided for themselves. Many opponents of the legislation countered by saying the U.S. already has the &amp;#...</description>
            <author>Neil Versel's Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4615222</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:10:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4615222</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Telemedicine: $3 Billion Market and Growing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560410&amp;cid=t_368121_113_f&amp;fid=39278&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogsite.mdbuyline.com%2F%3Fp%3D204</link>
            <description>Ask any hospital to name the top challenges they face in the next couple of years; if the non-payment of avoidable hospital readmissions is not on the list, then someone has not been paying attention.  Studies have shown that telemedicine technology can reduce readmission rates by 60%.  This is great news because in 2012, CMS will start reducing payments to hospitals with high preventable readmissions rates. 
Telemedicine is one of those technologies that you know is a great idea but has been slow to develop because of high costs, limited technology, and limited reimbursement.  But as costs come down, reimbursement becomes available, and technology improves, implementing telehealth programs has become more viable.  Most analysts predict the market will grow from $3 billion in 2009 to ...</description>
            <author>MD Buyline</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560410</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:48:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560410</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medicaid: Will The Cost Of Expanding Eligibility Be Overwhelming?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4549754&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmedicaid-will-the-cost-of-expanding-eligibility-be-overwhelming%2F2011.03.04</link>
            <description>Medicaid has been front and center this week as President Obama addressed the National Governors Association, and several governors testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Obama told the governors that he supports the Wyden-Brown bill, which would accelerate the availability of waivers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), so that states would not have to first create health insurance exchanges under the law, and then have the right to dismantle them and replace them with other mechanisms to achieve coverage goals of the law without additional cost to the federales. (See Wyden-Brown fact sheet.) The sponsors&amp;#8217; home states, Oregon and Massachusetts would otherwise have to dismantle parts of their own health reform efforts in order to align with the federal mandates...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4549754</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:00:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4549754</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Doctor Considering Primary Care? Show Me The Money</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4512393&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fnew-doctor-considering-primary-care-show-me-the-money%2F2011.02.23</link>
            <description>There are plenty of reasons why medical students aren’t choosing primary care as careers. Lack of role models. Perception of professional dissatisfaction. High burnout rate among generalist doctors. Long, uncontrollable hours.
But what about salary? Until now, the wage disparity between primary care doctors and specialists has only been an assumed reason; the evidence was largely circumstantial. After all, the average medical school debt exceeds $160,000, so why not go into a specialty that pays several times more, with better hours?
Thanks to Robert Centor, there’s a study published in Medscape that shows how money affects career choice among medical students. Here’s what they found:
Sixty-six percent of students did not apply for a primary care residency. Of these, 30 percent woul...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4512393</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:00:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4512393</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>National Health Policy Conference Summary Blog Post</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4455261&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FYAbzkXwG0_0%2F</link>
            <description>By Hope Ditto. It has been almost a year since Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but it seems that the questions and concerns surrounding it and its implementation are increasing rather than decreasing with time. From its legality to its funding, threats of repeal to promises to replace, buzz about the ACA from Wall Street to Main Street and up and down Pennsylvania Avenue has reached a fever pitch since the 112th Congress convened last month.
We have accepted that things are currently in limbo with regards to health care reform and the provisions born from the ACA, but that does not mean that those in the health care industry can call a recess until Congress can come to some sort of consensus/final decision on health care reform.
Instead, it is up to health care industry to s...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4455261</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:23:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4455261</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bringing Private Sector Innovation to Federal Health Reform Efforts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4450288&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FfY2q28</link>
            <description>By Mary Grealy. There’s no question that, if we’re ever to have effective health reform in this country, improving our healthcare delivery system has to come through a public-private partnership.
One of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act is the creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), an entity that will be charged with evaluating concepts for healthcare delivery reform and then putting into action demonstration projects that have the potential to improve healthcare quality and increase cost-efficiency.
Fortunately, much of this ground is already being broken in the private sector.  Throughout the country, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, group purchasing organizations, insurers, distributors and other health sector...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4450288</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:24:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4450288</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Accountable Care Act Unconstitutional? The Fate Of Americans’ Health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4433102&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Faccountable-care-act-unconstitutional-the-fate-of-americans-health%2F2011.02.03</link>
            <description>A Florida’s judge’s ruling that the Accountable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional doesn’t resolve the underlying constitutional issue (which will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) but it has introduced new uncertainty for the $2.3 trillion health care industry, and emboldened the law’s critics to push even harder for repeal (not that they weren’t trying already).
The Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) health blog reports that “states and companies that are supposed to be implementing the law trying to figure out what to do next. The WSJ reports that the 26 states that are parties to the suit are considering whether to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case now, before it has fully wended its way through the legal system. The New York Times (NYT) quotes the...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4433102</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4433102</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Interview with Disruptive Woman Stephanie Cohen</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4429011&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2Fevo4a9kNq-U%2F</link>
            <description>By Hope Ditto. It’s still too early to tell what exactly will come of the repeal vote on the Hill this week, and what it will mean for health care coverage. Whether the law is repealed altogether, or whether supplemental bills changing different parts of the original legislation are passed, only time will tell. Whether Obama will veto the repeal act, should a repeal make it to his desk (okay, that’s pretty certain, but stranger things have happened), or whether the Republicans would be able to whip enough votes for an override, we can only venture guesses. Only one thing is for certain – there has never been a more confusing time to buy health insurance.
That’s where health care benefits consultants – like Disruptive Women blogger and Golden &amp; Cohen benefits consulting firm c...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4429011</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:04:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4429011</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Repeal: A Poor Use of the People’s Time</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4382760&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FOUPOtNnEyC0%2F</link>
            <description>By Audrey Sheppard. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, as the Republican House has voted to do, it would have negative consequences on the economy, and on the tens of millions of citizens who would remain uninsured. While communicating the measure’s good points left Democrats and advocates with a heavy lift in 2010, national polling is beginning to show Americans understanding and better appreciating the law.  Prospects are for increased popularity in 2011 and beyond. 
This is understandable, as provisions that benefit our friends, family, neighbors – ourselves &amp;#8211; begin to kick in, and forthcoming provisions are better understood. Are you a parent who has worried that your son or daughters, a young adult, stay well b...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4382760</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:00:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4382760</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Reform and Humility</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4377565&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FOeqIxj_FQ1s%2F</link>
            <description>The following was originally posted by Disruptive Women Mary Grealy on the Prognosis Blog last Friday. Even though it was written prior to yesterday&amp;#8217;s vote to repeal health care reform by the House the message is still relevant, if not more so.
By Mary Grealy. Next Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation repealing the Affordable Care Act that the 111th Congress passed just last year.  Presuming that the U.S. Senate will not follow the House’s lead, next week’s vote begins what could be a very difficult and contentious process to determine the future of health reform.
As lawmakers, as well as those of us who advocate various policies and points of view, start down this road, we would all do well to take David Brooks’ column in today’s...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4377565</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:50:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4377565</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Repeal Roundup</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4360970&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FYYhudWN36kI%2F</link>
            <description>By Hope Ditto. Well hello again and my apologies for the recent hibernation! Between our Innovation series, the holidays and everything else that has been going on, the weekly roundups took a not-quite-so-brief hiatus. Though I was sorry to leave you without your one-stop dose of all the health care news you can use, I do hope you had the opportunity to check out what ran in its place, especially our December series on Innovation (if you missed it, you can check out the series here).
Enough of the housekeeping, now to get down to business. Not even the deepest hibernation in the most remote cave – or even the most recent bout of ice and snow &amp;#8212; could keep me from hearing the news – the GOP is going to try and repeal health care reform (or what they refer to as Obamacare). And with...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4360970</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:09:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4360970</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Names Matter</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337932&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FuQjaE73HQkY%2F</link>
            <description>This article discusses the various names the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has taken in the last couple of months. The insights are enlightening, take a look and let us know…What name do you think best encapsulates health care reform?



 




Related posts:Does Innovation in Health Care Matter? Disruptive Women in Health Care Answers this Question in a New eBook
Landmark: The Inside Story of America&amp;#8217;s New Health Care Law
Missed Opportunities and the Mandate Dilemma (Source: Disruptive Women in Health Care)</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337932</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:50:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337932</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Healthcare Repeal: How Would It Affect Coverage And Cost?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337939&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealthcare-repeal-how-would-it-affect-coverage-and-cost%2F2011.01.11</link>
            <description>[Soon] the new GOP-controlled House of Representatives will be voting on and is expected to pass a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) &amp;#8211; lock, stock, and barrel. There is virtually no chance the repeal bill will get through the Senate, though, which maintains a narrow Democratic majority, and President Obama would veto it if it did.
But let’s say that the seemingly impossible happened, and the ACA was repealed. What would the impact be on healthcare coverage, costs, and the federal deficit?
In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its preliminary estimates of the impact of repeal on the deficit, uninsured, and costs of care, and found that it would make the deficit worse, result in more uninsured persons, and higher premiu...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337939</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337939</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Hard Targets and Technology Utilization</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4322577&amp;cid=t_368121_113_f&amp;fid=39278&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogsite.mdbuyline.com%2F%3Fp%3D140</link>
            <description>When you have invested $1 million for a new piece of technology, you have to use it to make it pay.  I asked Paula Hennie-Roed, capital administrator at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC (an area known for leading-edge medicine), how they select a new piece of technology.  She explained, “The criteria that we use to rank each piece include need, safety, and patient care.  Part of the need portion involves projected utilization since this plays a major factor in revenue.”
But, what is reasonable a patient flow?  Five patients a day?  20 patients a day?  A Radiology Business Management Association (RBMA) study that found the national average utilization rate for high-end imaging equipment is 54%. 
With The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress proposed in...</description>
            <author>MD Buyline</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4322577</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:41:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4322577</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Virginia Federal Judge Strikes Down Individual Mandate in Obamacare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4258786&amp;cid=t_368121_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fvirginia-federal-judge-strikes-individual-mandate-obamacare%2F</link>
            <description>Federal district judge Henry Hudson has ruled against one of the keystones of the Affordable Care Act requiring all individuals to purchase healthcare insurance by 2014. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4258786</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:41:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4258786</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What To Do About Drug Prices? Three Suggestions…</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4225661&amp;cid=t_368121_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FNannBzcrm6Q%2F</link>
            <description>Health care reform may eventually solve some problems, but the price of medications may not be on the list. Consequently, drug pricing is likely to remain a contentious topic for the forseeable future. Consider that prices may continue to rise, even though drugmakers are required to offer new discounts and pay a new tax, prices may well continue to rise.
In the 12-month run-up to passage of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there was a 9.7 percent average price hike on widely used meds. Then there&amp;#8217;s the steep cost of so-called specialty drugs - those bank-account draining biologics. In 1995, just eight cost more than $10,000 annually; now, there are 48. And what is really known about behind-the-scenes rebates?
And so the deep thinkers at Deloitte, the consulting firm, a...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4225661</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:49:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4225661</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Reform: “Compete And Succeed” Or “Repeal Or Replace?”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4190154&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealth-reform-compete-and-succeed-or-repeal-or-replace%2F2010.11.22</link>
            <description>Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) thinks so. So does Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). And Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Senators Brown, Wyden and Sanders have introduced the &amp;#8220;Empowering States to Innovate Act.&amp;#8221; Ezra Klein blogs that the Senators may have found a way forward on health reform.
&amp;#8220;If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would&amp;#8217;ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill,&amp;#8221; Ezra Klein writes. &amp;#8220;If conservative solutions are more efficient, that will be clear when their ben...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4190154</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4190154</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Healthcare Reform Will Hit Drug Prices: CBO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4159499&amp;cid=t_368121_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FgwDDlcchpMc%2F</link>
            <description>So what will health care reform mean to prescription drug pricing? In response to a query from Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the US Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and come up with the following forecasts, which discuss price hikes and rebates&amp;#8230;
For instance, the new law is expected to raise prices paid by pharmacies, less any rebates paid by drugmakers to insurers, by about 1 percent, on average. That increase would slightly raise federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs for some beneficiaries, but the new discounts would make the costs faced by other beneficiaries substantially lower. T...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4159499</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:13:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4159499</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federal Court Rules Forcing Patients To Buy Health Insurance Is Constitutional</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4045037&amp;cid=t_368121_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F10%2Ffederal-court-rules-forcing-patients-buy-health-insurance-constitutional%2F</link>
            <description>Federal judge George Steeh has ruled that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (aka &amp;#8220;Obamacare&amp;#8221;) that requires all citizens to buy health insurance does not violate constitutional rights. The ruling was in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4045037</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:10:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4045037</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The PPACA: Does It Pass The Playground Test?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4027158&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-ppaca-does-it-pass-the-playground-test%2F2010.10.03</link>
            <description>Could understanding the tacit rules which govern play on a neighborhood playground help us explain why some aspects of implementing healthcare reform are unlikely to succeed? Recent news involving McDonald&amp;#8217;s Corporation suggests so.
On the playground, there are some simple precepts &amp;#8212; like the fact that older and stronger kids get to make up the game, and the rules. That&amp;#8217;s understood and mostly okay. As if these leaders are considered modestly benevolent and the rules are workable, the game is good and all benefit. And all players on the playground know this basic tenet of fairness: That the rules of the game shouldn&amp;#8217;t change in the midst of the competition, and, taking it one step further, if the rules have to be changed they weren&amp;#8217;t very good in the first pla...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4027158</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4027158</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol Now In Effect</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4018184&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fnew-self-referral-disclosure-protocol-now-in-effect%2F2010.09.28</link>
            <description>The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services scrapped its old self-referral voluntary disclosure program in 2009 (it dated back to 1998, and was revisited in 2008), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) mandated that it be replaced. Just like clockwork, on the deadline for its promulgation the OIG obliged, and the new Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol is now posted and effective.
The new protocol could be clearer and offer more comfort, but it doesn&amp;#8217;t. Makes one pine for the old policy&amp;#8217;s clarity: In the old days, voluntary disclosure bought you a discounted fine for Stark violations &amp;#8212; not like the new protocol&amp;#8217;s wishy-washy, maybe-we&amp;#8217;ll-give-you-a-discount language. The new protocol also fa...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4018184</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4018184</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Affordable Care Act: What’s Not Being Reported About Preventive Screening Benefits</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4001685&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-affordable-care-act-whats-not-being-reported-about-preventive-screening-benefits%2F2010.09.25</link>
            <description>One part of the health care law that took effect this week is widely reported as &amp;#8220;establishing a menu of preventive procedures, such as colonoscopies, mammograms and cholesterol screening, that must be covered without co-payments.&amp;#8221; For example, one of my local papers, the [St. Paul, Minnesota] Star Tribune, wrote: &amp;#8220;Some people will no longer have to pay for copays, coinsurance or meet their deductibles for preventive care that&amp;#8217;s backed up by the best scientific evidence.&amp;#8221; (emphasis added)
That phrase should always include a huge asterisk, like the one hung on Roger Maris&amp;#8217; 61st home run. The best scientific evidence according to whom?
Time magazine reports, &amp;#8220;Procedures, screenings and tests that are considered &amp;#8216;preventive&amp;#8217; will be determ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4001685</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:00:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4001685</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Large Healthcare Systems: Are They Gouging Patients?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3993906&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Flarge-healthcare-systems-are-they-gouging-patients%2F2010.09.22</link>
            <description>With patients having to pay more of what&amp;#8217;s charged for their healthcare, comparisons between medical systems like this one in Pennsylvania make us wonder if bigger necessarily means better. From the Times-Tribune:
The Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council study looked at four regional hospitals that offer cardiac surgery: Geisinger Wyoming Valley, Plains Twp.; Community Medical Center and Mercy Hospital, Scranton; and Pocono Medical Center, East Stroudsburg.
Among the four, Geisinger Wyoming Valley carries the biggest price tag. In 2008, the average hospital charge for a coronary artery bypass graft surgery was $108,029 and the average hospital charge for valve surgery was $132,740, according to information in the report. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was original...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3993906</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3993906</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Patient Bill Of Rights: What Ever Happened To It?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3929235&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fpatient-bill-of-rights-what-ever-happened-to-it%2F2010.09.02</link>
            <description>One of the more surprising twists and turns in the continuing debate over healthcare reform is that many physicians who now object to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were just a few years back advocates for more federal regulation. In fact, in the early 2000s, more than 200 &amp;#8220;provider&amp;#8221; and consumer groups &amp;#8212; including many state medical and national medical specialty societies that now oppose the ACA because of concerns about &amp;#8220;excessive regulation&amp;#8221; &amp;#8212; were among the fiercest champions of federal legislation to mandate that health insurers comply with a Patient Bill of Rights.
A bipartisan bill introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would have ensured that patients have the &amp;#8220;right&amp;#8221; to appeal insurance compa...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3929235</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3929235</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Healthcare Reform Will Keep Medicare Afloat</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3848870&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealthcare-reform-will-keep-medicare-afloat%2F2010.08.09</link>
            <description>One of the more effective criticisms of the health reform law (Affordable Care Act, or ACA) is that it hurts Medicare. It also is wrong.
Effective, in that it has been widely reported that seniors are more likely to express negative views of the ACA than other age groups. (Although the Kaiser Family Foundation&amp;#8217;s Drew Altman, citing the group&amp;#8217;s most recent tracking polls, writes that seniors&amp;#8217; opposition to health reform &amp;#8220;is at least somewhat over played.&amp;#8221;)
Effective, but wrong: The ACA actually helps Medicare in three important ways. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3848870</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3848870</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Emergency Care’s Ambiguity In The Affordable Care Act</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3595588&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Femergency-cares-ambiguity-in-the-affordable-care-act%2F2010.05.24</link>
            <description>There&amp;#8217;s just so much hidden and buried in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that it&amp;#8217;s like trying the find all the goodies in an Easter egg hunt. ACEP News pointed out one hidden goodie, nicely illustrated in this article from Kaiser Health News:
Under the new health law, insurance companies must extend several new protections to patients who receive emergency care. One of the biggest guarantees: Patients who need emergency treatment will have their costs covered at the same rate, regardless of whether they are treated at &amp;#8220;in-network&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;out-of-network&amp;#8221; hospitals.
The law also bars health plans from requiring prior authorization for emergency services. And it mandates that plans follow the &amp;#8220;prudent layperson&amp;#8221; rule. For example, if a person goes ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3595588</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3595588</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Patient Centered Medical Home Model:  A Way to Cost-Effectively Improve Quality of Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3475821&amp;cid=t_368121_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpcpcc.net%2Ffiles%2FPilotGuidePip.pdf</link>
            <description>By Lisa Korin. The media has given much attention to the health insurance aspects of health reform, but less to aspects of the law addressing the root issues.  Yes, the number of uninsured is a huge problem, but let’s not forget that an increasingly chronically ill population needing access to often expensive health services is one the key drivers contributing to the plight of the uninsured even needing insurance.
According to the CDC, nearly 50% of the U.S. population suffers from a preventable chronic health condition, and these diseases account for 75% of the nation’s $2 trillion annual healthcare costs. Much of these costs arise from:  patients obtaining care from multiple healthcare providers, lack of medical care coordination, duplicate diagnostic testing and provider visits, a...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3475821</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:57:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3475821</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

