UnitedHealth to rebate $3.5 million to California small businesses – hmmmm read on…

Nearly 4,400 small businesses in California will share in $3.5 million in rebates from insurance giant UnitedHealth Group Inc. this summer as insurers nationwide prepare to return millions of dollars to customers as a key benefit of the federal healthcare law kicks in.

The first of these California rebates, amounting to about $98 each for nearly 36,000 small-business employees and dependents covered by UnitedHealth, comes because the company’s spending on medical care fell short of new government requirements.

Insurers must notify federal and state officials of how much they may owe policyholders by Friday if they failed to spend a minimum amount of customers’ premiums on medical care last year. Consumer groups pushed for this provision in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act to ensure that companies aren’t raising premiums to pay for executive salaries, shareholder dividends and other expenses unrelated to customers’ care.

Healthcare experts say the rebates probably will be modest on a per-person basis and most of the money may go to employers. As of Wednesday, UnitedHealth was the only insurer that had filed rebate information with the state Department of Managed Health Care. Other companies are expected to disclose the size of their customer rebates later this week and send out money by Aug. 1.

UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest insurer, said checks will go out in July to those small businesses affected. The Minnetonka, Minn., company said that under the federal rules it did not owe rebates to individual policyholders or large employers in California.

Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said these rebates are an important milestone since most other provisions of the federal law don’t take effect until 2014, and policyholders have continued to face rising premiums. The average premium for employer coverage in California has increased 154% over the last decade, more than five times the 29% increase in the state’s overall inflation rate.

“For the first time, a broad spectrum of California and America will feel a positive consequence of this legislation,” Kominski said.”When is the last time you got a rebate from your health insurance company? People have been waiting a long time for this.”

If you want to finish the article, you can go to the article. If you find you have questions about California Health Insurance, please don’t hesitate to give us a ring.

Have a great weekend!!

Posted in Health Care, Health Insurance News | Comments Off

Nonelderly women in California: A health snapshot…an eye opener for me…what about you??

Many non elderly Women Have Limited Incomes
One-third (34%) of non elderly women in California were low income in 2007, with family incomes below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).1 Among the women in this group, 17% had family incomes that were 0-99% FPL, and another 17% had family incomes at 100-199% FPL. An additional 23% were moderate income, with family incomes that were 200-399% FPL. Among the subgroups of women ages 18-64, those with higher proportions of low-income women were African Americans (41%), American Indian/Alaska Natives (47%), Latinas (58%), younger women (ages 18–29; 46%) and single parents (66%).
Poor Health Is More Prevalent among Women in Mid-Age and Women of Color Approximately one in five (18%) non elderly women reported being in fair or poor health; the rate nearly doubled for women with low incomes (32%). Additionally, among low income women ages 45–64, almost half (48%) reported being in fair or poor health.
High Blood Pressure Nearly one in five (19%) non elderly women had ever been diagnosed with high blood pressure.2 Rates increased with age: 11% of women in the 18–44 age group had been diagnosed with high blood pressure, compared to 33% of women ages 45–64. Within subgroups of women 45–64, this high prevalence condition had been diagnosed in half or more of American Indian/Alaska Native (50%) and African American (59%) women, as well as in approximately one in three Latinas (34%), Asian/Pacific Islander women (33%) and white women (29%).
Diabetes
Five percent of non elderly women reported having ever been diagnosed with diabetes.3 Prevalence rates rose with age and differed by race and ethnicity. Among all women 45–64, the prevalence of diabetes was 9%; rates were higher among African American women (17%) and Latinas (15%), who had approximately twice the rate of both white and Asian/Pacific Islander women (7% each).
Overweight and Obesity
Based on self-reported height and weight, one in five (21%) non elderly women was obese, and an additional 29% were overweight.5 Women ages 18–29 had the lowest rate of obesity (13%), with the rate increasing to 22%-26% among women ages 30–64.
Smoking Rates Still High for Some Groups
Slightly more than one in ten (12%) non elderly women—approximately 1.3 million— reported that they smoked cigarettes.
Lack of Coverage Is Associated with Less Preventive Care:
Physician Visit
Overall, 13% of non elderly women had not visited a physician in the past year, with rates three times higher for uninsured women (29%)
than for women with employment-based coverage (8%).
Mammography Screening
Overall, 79% of women ages 40–64 had received a mammogram within the past two years.
Pap Test Screening
Among women ages 21–64, 90% had received a Pap test screen in the past three years.
Discussion
Many disparities in health and health care access exist among non elderly women in California. The recently enacted health care reform provides opportunities to reduce some of these disparities. Implementation of provisions of the reform will begin this year and will continue through 2014, when the major reforms that expand access to health insurance coverage will be fully in place.

Posted in Health Insurance News | Comments Off

California health insurance premiums still on the rise!

Health Care has changed a lot in the past 13 years. With premiums rising nearly 131% for a family of four since 1999, it’s hard to say when coverage will become more affordable. It is America’s hope that health care will be cheaper and easier to obtain with the passage of Health Care Reform, but that remains to be seen. As we get closer to 2014, the supposed year guarantee issue eligibility is mandated, California health insurance plans seem to offer less coverage.

The time when most plans offered unlimited office visit co-payments, included low deductibles, and provided prescriptions medications before deductible, is history! Most individuals and small employers can only afford to provide high deductible plans to their employees and families. These policies offer comprehensive medical protection in the event of an accident, but don’t provide much in way of office visits and prescription medications before deductible.

Some California health carriers offer office visit co-payments and prescriptions before deductible, but with limits on office visits (3 visits per year) and more intensive cost sharing on brand name prescriptions. This cost sharing may include a brand name deductible as low as $500 or as high as $7,500. For an individual or family, this may be the only way to get affordable health care that includes office visits and prescription medications.

It will be interesting to see what happens to health insurance premiums in the next couple years. Not only that, it will be interesting to see how much more cost sharing is expected to be covered by the consumer.

Posted in Health Insurance News | Comments Off

Study: Millions of Small Businesses Not Claiming Reform Law Tax Credits – read the pdf and get educated!!

Get Educated.

Millions of small businesses have not taken advantage of a tax credit under the federal health reform law to help provide health coverage to employees,according to a new study released by Families USA and the Small Business Majority.

Under the overhaul, the credit is available to businesses that employ fewer than 25 workers whose annual incomes average less than $50,000, provide coverage benefits and pay at least half of their employees’ premiums.

Study Findings:

* 3.2 million small businesses met the criteria for the tax credit in tax year 2011; and
* 1.3 million met eligibility standards for the maximum credit of 35% of premium costs.

The White House estimates that just 360,000 businesses in 2011 claimed the tax credit.

The report also found that:

* The provision could provide credits of more than $15 billion
* The credit would affect 19.3 million workers
* The credit is worth an average of $800 per worker in eligible businesses
* 5.8 million workers are in businesses that are eligible for the maximum credit; and
* The credit is worth an average of $1,066 per worker in businesses eligible for the maximum credit

Comments on Findings

According to Families USA, businesses’ lack of knowledge about the policy has prevented them from taking advantage of a credit that could make health care more affordable.

John Arensmeyer — founder and CEO of SBM — noted that a recent survey1 found that 57% of businesses were unaware of the program.

Critics of the program — including the National Federation of Independent Business, the leading trade group for small businesses — have said that the credit is not enough to make a significant dent in mounting health care 1 costs.

So, there you have it. Information, Information and the ‘Get Educated’ link that i have attached. So, I hope today’s post won’t go unnoticed. If you know someone that could possibly benefit from the ‘current resources available’, then PASS IT ON!!

Posted in Health Care, Health Insurance News | Comments Off

Health Care Costs 101 breaks it down for us Californians…check it out.

California ranked among the lowest in the nation for per-capita health spending in 2009. Still, the total was $230 billion.

See more:

Health spending represents a significant share of California’s economy, but the amount spent ranks among the lowest in the nation — both per person and per Medicaid enrollee. Since reaching its peak of 9.7% in 2003, the pace of growth in health spending has been decelerating. By 2009, toward the end of the recession, spending grew 4.5%, similar to the US rate of 4.6%, and the slowest pace since 1999.

Health Care Costs 101 is part of the California Healthcare Foundation’s California Health Care Almanac.

Highlights for 2009 include:

* Health spending in California reached $230 billion, triple 1991 levels.
* California’s per-capita spending of $6,238, was the ninth lowest in the nation. By comparison, the US spending per capita was $6,815.
* Health spending accounted for 12.2% of California’s economy — a smaller share of the economy than most states or the nation.
* Hospital and physician services continued to account for the majority of spending, totaling 63%.
* Medicare and Medicaid accounted for nearly 40% of California health spending, up from 27% in 1991.

Health Care Costs 101: California Addendum, 2012

I hope you find today’s post insightful. As a taxpayer, I like to see where my money is going. What about you? Leave me a word or two on how you feel.

Posted in Health Care, Health Insurance News | Comments Off

Health Net Expands Low-Cost HMO Plan to Orange County

Insurer Health Net has expanded its low-cost HMO SmartCare into Orange County one year after it launched the plan in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. The plan provides a 25% discount on premiums compared with a full insurance network. Health Net has contracted with nine health care provider groups in Orange County.

Woodland Hills-based insurer Health Net has expanded its SmartCare narrow network product into Orange County. SmartCare, which offers about a 25% discount on premiums compared to a full network, debuted in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties last March. It’s attracted more than 200 mediumsized employer groups to date. “It has proven to be popular with employers seeking an
easy to use plan that delivers more affordable value,” said Steve Sell, president of Health Net’s western region. Altogether, Health Net has contracted with nine medical groups in Orange County to provide care. It has contracted with 40 medical groups in the four counties where it offers the product. “We believe that SmartCare’s strategic alliances and focus on promoting healthy habits will
help improve the patient experience and help keep costs affordable for members,” said Dan Frank, chief executive ofcer of Prospect Medical Group, one of Health Net’s contracted providers.

Posted in Health Insurance News | Comments Off

The Preview Health Insurance Executives Don’t Want You to See – did i get your attention??

Starting this week one million Californians will pay hundreds of millions of dollars more for their health insurance. It’s a plot right out of Groundhog Day, only it happens every Spring, Winter, Summer and Fall.

Health insurance rates in California are like a runaway train and there’s no police force or firefighting squad with the power to stop them. Thirty five states require health insurance companies to get permission before raising rates, but not California.

So Hollywood’s fighting back with a short movie trailer preview of an alternative future. This short preview is of the impact of a real ballot proposal — which only needs another two hundred thousand signatures to qualify for the November ballot. With enough signatures, Californians can then decide their own fate and stop outrageous rate hikes.

In Studio City, Calif. a self-employed, single mom watched her health insurance premium triple over the last decade. On May 1 the price climbed by 16 percent. She asks, “If I have to get pre-approval from my insurance company every time I want my health care paid for, shouldn’t they have to get approval when they want me to pay more?”

For a decade the legislature has answered no, following the health insurance industries’ line that the market and federal health care reform can be trusted to moderate rates. Tell that to the million Californians hit with rate hikes on May 1.

Over the last decade health insurance premiums have shot up 153 percent — growing five times the rate of inflation (29 percent). Four companies, including Anthem Blue Cross, control 71 percent of the health insurance market — competition isn’t in the cards. As a result, Californians don’t just move to cheaper plans, they also drop insurance. California has one of the nation’s highest uninsured rates.

Since 2003, the California legislature has refused to pass a law requiring that health insurance companies get approval before raising rates in the same way that auto insurance and home insurance companies have to today. That’s why consumer advocates like myself have joined with Senator Dianne Feinstein and Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones to qualify the ballot measure that requires health insurance companies to live up to the same standards as other insurance companies.

More than 600,000 voters have signed our petition to make health insurance companies publicly justify their rates, as we rush toward the deadline to qualify for the November ballot. The preview of different future isn’t just a Hollywood story. It’s within our sights if 200,000 more Californians sign our ballot measure in the next two weeks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

As America’s waistline expands, costs soar with Health Care .. A GREAT READ!!!

The nation’s rising rate of obesity has been well-chronicled. But businesses, governments and individuals are only now coming to grips with the costs of those extra pounds, many of which are even greater than believed only a few years ago: The additional medical spending due to obesity is double previous estimates and exceeds even those of smoking, a new study shows.

Many of those costs have dollar signs in front of them, such as the higher health insurance premiums everyone pays to cover those extra medical costs. Other changes, often cost-neutral, are coming to the built environment in the form of wider seats in public places from sports stadiums to bus stops.

The startling economic costs of obesity, often borne by the non-obese, could become the epidemic’s second-hand smoke. Only when scientists discovered that nonsmokers were developing lung cancer and other diseases from breathing smoke-filled air did policymakers get serious about fighting the habit, in particular by establishing nonsmoking zones. The costs that smoking added to Medicaid also spurred action. Now, as economists put a price tag on sky-high body mass indexes (BMIs), policymakers as well as the private sector are mobilizing to find solutions to the obesity epidemic.

“As committee chairmen, Cabinet secretaries, the head of Medicare and health officials see these really high costs, they are more interested in knowing, ‘what policy knob can I turn to stop this hemorrhage?’” said Michael O’Grady of the National Opinion Research Center, co-author of a new report for the Campaign to End Obesity, which brings together representatives from business, academia and the public health community to work with policymakers on the issue.

The U.S. health care reform law of 2010 allows employers to charge obese workers 30 percent to 50 percent more for health insurance if they decline to participate in a qualified wellness program. The law also includes carrots and celery sticks, so to speak, to persuade Medicare and Medicaid enrollees to see a primary care physician about losing weight, and funds community demonstration programs for weight loss.

Such measures do not sit well with all obese Americans. Advocacy groups formed to “end size discrimination” argue that it is possible to be healthy “at every size,” taking issue with the findings that obesity necessarily comes with added medical costs.

The reason for denominating the costs of obesity in dollars is not to stigmatize plus-size Americans even further. Rather, the goal is to allow public health officials as well as employers to break out their calculators and see whether programs to prevent or reverse obesity are worth it.

LOST PRODUCTIVITY

The percentage (%) of Americans who are obese (with a BMI of 30 or higher) has tripled since 1960, to 34 percent, while the incidence of extreme or “morbid” obesity (BMI above 40) has risen sixfold, to 6 percent. The percentage of overweight Americans (BMI of 25 to 29.9) has held steady: It was 34 percent in 2008 and 32 percent in 1961. What seems to have happened is that for every healthy-weight person who “graduated” into overweight, an overweight person graduated into obesity.

Because obesity raises the risk of a host of medical conditions, from heart disease to chronic pain, the obese are absent from work more often than people of healthy weight. The most obese men take 5.9 more sick days a year; the most obese women, 9.4 days more. Obesity-related absenteeism costs employers as much as $6.4 billion a year, health economists led by Eric Finkelstein of Duke University calculated.

Even when poor health doesn’t keep obese workers home, it can cut into productivity, as they grapple with pain or shortness of breath or other obstacles to working all-out. Such obesity-related “presenteeism,” said Finkelstein, is also expensive. The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female. Total annual cost of presenteeism due to obesity: $30 billion.

Decreased productivity can reduce wages, as employers penalize less productive workers. Obesity hits workers’ pocketbooks indirectly, too: Numerous studies have shown that the obese are less likely to be hired and promoted than their svelte peers are. Women in particular bear the brunt of that, earning about 11 percent less than women of healthy weight, health economist John Cawley of Cornell University found. At the average weekly U.S. wage of $669 in 2010, that’s a $76 weekly obesity tax.

MORE DOCTORS, MORE PILLS

The medical costs of obesity have long been the focus of health economists. A just-published analysis finds that it raises those costs more than thought.

Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

That is double recent estimates, reflecting more precise methodology. The new analysis corrected for people’s tendency to low-ball their weight, for instance, and compared obesity with non-obesity (healthy weight and overweight) rather than just to healthy weight. Because the merely overweight do not incur many additional medical costs, grouping the overweight with the obese underestimates the costs of obesity.

Contrary to the media’s idealization of slimness, medical spending for men is about the same for BMIs of 26 to 35. For women, the uptick starts at a BMI of 25. In men more than women, high BMIs can reflect extra muscle as well as fat, so it is possible to be healthy even with an overweight BMI. “A man with a BMI of 28 might be very fit,” said Cawley. “Where healthcare costs really take off is in the morbidly obese.”

Those extra medical costs are partly born by the non-obese, in the form of higher taxes to support Medicaid and higher health insurance premiums. Obese women raise such “third party” expenditures $3,220 a year each; obese men, $967 a year, Cawley and Meyerhoefer found.

One recent surprise is the discovery that the costs of obesity exceed those of smoking. In a paper published in March, scientists at the Mayo Clinic toted up the exact medical costs of 30,529 Mayo employees, adult dependents, and retirees over several years.

“Smoking added about 20 percent a year to medical costs,” said Mayo’s James Naessens. “Obesity was similar, but morbid obesity increased those costs by 50 percent a year. There really is an economic justification for employers to offer programs to help the very obese lose weight.”

LIVING LARGE, BUT NOT DYING YOUNG

For years researchers suspected that the higher medical costs of obesity might be offset by the possibility that the obese would die young, and thus never rack up spending for nursing homes, Alzheimer’s care, and other pricey items.

That’s what happens to smokers. While they do incur higher medical costs than nonsmokers in any given year, their lifetime drain on public and private dollars is less because they die sooner. “Smokers die early enough that they save Social Security, private pensions, and Medicare” trillions of dollars, said Duke’s Finkelstein. “But mortality isn’t that much higher among the obese.”

Beta blockers for heart disease, diabetes drugs, and other treatments are keeping the obese alive longer, with the result that they incur astronomically high medical expenses in old age just like their slimmer peers.

Some costs of obesity reflect basic physics. It requires twice as much energy to move 250 pounds than 125 pounds. As a result, a vehicle burns more gasoline carrying heavier passengers than lighter ones.

“Growing obesity rates increase fuel consumption,” said engineer Sheldon Jacobson of the University of Illinois. How much? An additional 938 million gallons of gasoline each year due to overweight and obesity in the United States, or 0.8 percent, he calculated. That’s $4 billion extra.

Not all the changes spurred by the prevalence of obesity come with a price tag. Train cars New Jersey Transit ordered from Bombardier have seats 2.2 inches wider than current cars, at 19.75 inches, said spokesman John Durso, giving everyone a more comfortable commute. (There will also be more seats per car because the new ones are double-deckers.)

The built environment generally is changing to accommodate larger Americans. New York’s commuter trains are considering new cars with seats able to hold 400 pounds. Blue Bird is widening the front doors on its school buses so wider kids can fit. And at both the new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, home of the New York Mets, seats are wider than their predecessors by 1 to 2 inches.

The new performance testing proposed by transit officials for buses, assuming an average passenger weight of 175 instead of 150 pounds, arise from concerns that heavier passengers might pose a safety threat. If too much weight is behind the rear axle, a bus can lose steering. And every additional pound increases a moving vehicle’s momentum, requiring more force to stop and thereby putting greater demands on brakes. Manufacturers have told the FTA the proposal will require them to upgrade several components.

Hospitals, too, are adapting to larger patients. The University of Alabama at Birmingham’s hospital, the nation’s fourth largest, has widened doors, replaced wall-mounted toilets with floor models able to hold 250 pounds or more, and bought plus-size wheelchairs (twice the price of regulars) as well as mini-cranes to hoist obese patients out of bed.

The additional spending due to obesity doesn’t fall into a black hole, of course. It contributes to overall economic activity and thus to gross domestic product. But not all spending is created equal.

“Yes, a heart attack will generate economic activity, since the surgeon and hospital get paid, but not in a good way,” said Murray Ross, vice president of Kaiser Permanente’s Institute for Health Policy. “If we avoided that heart attack we could have put the money to better use, such as in education or investments in clean energy.”

The books on obesity remain open. The latest entry: An obese man is 64 percent less likely to be arrested for a crime than a healthy man. Researchers have yet to run the numbers on what that might save.

WOW, now if you did not get something out of this post, please let me know. Our future is definitely in our hands!! Please let me know your thoughts.

Posted in Health Care, Health Insurance News | Comments Off

Where America needs doctors, in one map – by counties…check it out!!

This is very cool!!

Geographic data firm Esri has put together a county-by-county map of which parts of the country have the greatest need for doctors right now. Click through for an interactive version, the dark blue counties have a very low need for physicians, with fewer than 1,000 people per doctor’s office. The need is much higher in the dark orange locations, which have no primary care providers at all.

If anything, this map illustrates how much where you live matters for how much health care you have access to. The 17,000 residents of Clark County, Miss. do not have a single primary care doctor in the area. Up in Manhattan there is one doctor for every 500 people. Here in CA we seem to be doing alright. But nonetheless, Primary Care physicians are on the decline for sure!

Posted in Health Care, Health Insurance News | Comments Off

Californians Struggle To Find Accurate Medical Pricing…my head just nods….

California residents are having difficulty obtaining accurate price estimates for medical procedures despite a state law requiring hospitals to publish average charges for common procedures on a state website.

Barriers To Finding Accurate Pricing

Although the law — enacted in 2006 — requires hospitals to publicly post average charges for common medical procedures, most facilities do not list prices on their own websites, where residents are more likely to seek cost information.

In addition, the prices listed on the state Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development website often are not what people actually pay for a procedure. Insured patients would pay a smaller amount than listed on the site, depending on the price negotiated by their insurer. In addition, prices provided by hospitals contacted by the Times often did not include physician costs or other related expenses.

David Byrnes, spokesperson for OSHPD, said the agency does not have the authority to request additional hospital data beyond billing charges.

Meanwhile, insurers cannot provide detailed data that include specific names of hospitals or clinics because they would be in violation of contracts with health care providers.

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones (D) said he wants more consumers to have access to insurers’ pricing information. He said, “Consumers don’t really know the health-cost consequences of their decisions,” adding, “and they have more of their money at stake.”

Pending Legislation

State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) has offered a bill that would require hospitals to disclose all potential charges for medical procedures — including all physician and lab fees — in certain cases. The Senate is scheduled to conduct a second hearing on the legislation later this month.

The California Medical Association and the California Hospital Association are concerned about the measure. The groups say hospitals should not be responsible for providing physician charges because doctors are independent contractors and cannot be employed by hospitals under state law.

The California Medical Association says insurance companies are better positioned to assist residents with questions about out-of-pocket costs.

Molly Weedn, spokesperson for the group, said, “We have to ask whether we want physicians focusing on paperwork or treating patients” (Terhune, Los Angeles Times, 4/15).

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF ‘READER RESPONSES’

This is Deja vu indeed! Back in 1984, as a newly minted health economist, my first foray into public policy was making a case for more info on hospital pricing as one strategy for instilling more competition. Then Assembly Health Committee Chair Curtis Tucker introduced a bill within a month of floating the idea with chief consultant Paul Press. The bill required hospitals to post in publicly accessible areas their “charges” for common procedures. We now refer to such policy as advocating transparency in pricing. It drew immediate/predictable opposition from the hospital industry; this was leverage Tucker wanted to horse-trade for another policy/bill. Fast forward some 20 years; we are still trying to make sense of arcane hospital accounting systems based on charges that have no relevance to real market dynamics. Perhaps a truer pricing disclosure would be posting what hospitals receive in actual “average” reimbursement for most common procedures from all payers for the last 12 mos.

The system is stacked against transparency. If you are involved in a fender-bender paramedics at the scene will urge you to go to the E.D. even if you feel fine. But ask what it will cost and they shrug. The cost could be as much as $15,000–merely to tell you what you think you already know–you’re fine! But because you’re insured, you shouldn’t care it costs, right? In reality, you have no way of making a sensible choice and thus, you are part of the problem of persistent high costs. It’s ridiculous that we can’t know in advance what a hip replacement or other joint repair will cost. It’s ridiculous that physicians write prescriptions for drugs that cost $400, when there’s a slightly less potent over-the-counter drug for $25 that would do the trick. And if we don’t fix it, we’re going to bankrupt our children.

Posted in Health Insurance News, Interesting | Comments Off