New research from the Commonwealth Fund illustrates the impact of cutting the Affordable Care Act, which would result in a loss of 2.6 million jobs caused by a $140 billion decrease in federal healthcare funding. Mostly in health and private sectors, the number of jobs lost would jump to nearly 3 million by 2021.

Obamacare’s Major Provisions

Souce: Flickr

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a measure passed under President Obama, which provides subsidies for insurance premiums and expands Medicaid eligibilities. The ACA supports low-to-moderate income families with premium tax credits on qualified health plans, which are paid to insurance companies. Why not also check out this best insurance company or forsikringsselskap best i test for more info!

The individuals assisted makeup 100 to 400 percent of national poverty. The system awards the largest tax credits to the lowest-income individuals.

The ACA also expands Medicaid to non-elderly adults who bring in incomes that fall 138 percent below the federal poverty level. Only 31 states have expanded Medicaid, with the federal government covering the majority of costs to insure eligible individuals.

While Obamacare has been referred to as a “job killer,” research illustrates that the ACA has actually stimulated job growth. Studies show that federal healthcare funding creates a revenue ripple effect that provides indirect and induced rewards, such as the ability to purchase additional medical equipment or allow individuals to support a family and contribute to the economy.

Economic Implications of Repealing Obamacare

A team of researchers collaborating with the Commonwealth Fund analyzed data to determine the effects of the repeal, predicting increased costs across the board in 2019. The research is based on the failure to supplement the repeal with a replacement plan.

Additional research support came from the Geiger Gibson RCHN Community Health Foundation Research Collaborative, and the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University.

The research shows that hospitals and physicians would see a $1.1 trillion increase in uncompensated costs between 2019 to 2028, due to millions of uninsured who are now unable to pay their medical bills. Though the cuts would lead to a loss of revenue for the industry, each state could see economic implications as well.

“When federal funds are cut, the results play out in the other direction, triggering losses in employment, economic activity, and state and local revenues,” according to the Commonwealth Fund’s research.

National Industry Distress

Researchers measured how the repeal could affect employment and economic activity on a state-by-state basis. The team used a multistate economic forecasting model “to quantify for each state the effects of the federal spending cuts.”

The majority of unemployed will be in the private sector and in health care, but other industries will be impacted too. Researchers predict serious distress caused by:

• Unemployment from jobs lost in healthcare, construction, real estate, retail, finance and insurance
• Losses in economic and business outputs
• Decrease in state and local tax revenues

$140 billion in funding cuts. 2.6 million jobs lost statewide.

In short, repealing the ACA could create serious economic and employment deficits, affecting states, the private sector and the health care system.

“Because they serve so many uninsured and Medicaid patients, safety-net facilities such as hospitals and community health centers could be especially hard hit,” according to the Commonwealth Fund. “In the end, states could be forced to choose between cutting vital services and raising tax rates.”

The provisions of the ACA largely benefit low- and middle-income individuals who require the additional funds to afford food, shelter and other basic needs. According to the research, only the wealthy will save money when Obamacare is repealed.

“Moreover, such spending creates greater economic stimulus than tax deductions that disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals, who are likely to shift more money into savings, which is less stimulative.”

The post Repealing Obamacare: Research Shows Billion-Dollar Economic Loss appeared first on Citizens Report.

Republicans and Democrats each want to achieve the same goal

Unless you’re a politician or a lawyer, it’s pretty hard to read all of the jargon and make any real sense of it. In an effort to try and catch you up to speed, and without going into the vast amounts of bullet points each one contains, here is the core difference between the two plans.

A shared goal

First, you’ve got to understand that the healthcare debate is such a hot one because both sides of the aisle have fundamentally different ways of pursuing efficiency. Both Republicans and Democrats want the same thing, which is to tackle the problems within healthcare and arrive at a solution that balances quality of care with fair pricing, but each has a different opinion of how to get there.

With different strategies

Conservatives believe that a competitive market is the way to go. They would use taxpayer money to create a system where American consumers would benefit within a marketplace where insurers would offer very different options. Healthcare coverage and pricing would then be driven by consumer’s choices. Republicans also feel that the federal government’s role in healthcare should be much smaller than it is now. They believe individual states should be responsible for making individual plans easier to get.

Liberals believe the answer lies not in the competitive marketplace but in a centralized design where purchasing decisions are in the hands of the government. Individuals purchase coverage from state and federal insurance exchanges instead of traditional private market providers, and the affordability of plans comes from subsidies.

There. You are now educated on the main difference between the competing plans.

The bottom line is, both the Republicans and Democrats have some good ideas and not so good ideas in each of their healthcare bills. Ideally, for the American people to truly be served and offered affordable healthcare coverage, ideas from both sides of the aisle would be combined into one cohesive plan that would make the most sense.

Will this ever happen? Time will tell.

The post What are the Fundamental Differences Between the GOP’s Healthcare Plan and Obamacare? appeared first on Citizens Report.

Alexis Benter

The Obama administration recently revealed its new $3.99 trillion budget for 2016. It announced its plans to negotiate prices for costly drugs and biotechnology treatments under the Medicare Part D program, which offers private coverage for senior citizens and the disabled. Before this plan can be put into effect, it first needs to be approved by a Republican Congress. However, the new Congress has been very vocal about supporting market forces over government intervention as a means to control healthcare costs.

Obama’s budget plan has already come under attack from one of the drug industry’s biggest lobbying groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. This company feels that the plan contains, “harmful proposals that fundamentally alter the structure of the Medicare Part D program,” according to Reuters.

Biotechnology Costs More

Specialty drugs and biotechnology treatments, which are genetically engineered drugs that are often found to be more effective than traditional medicine, have increased in cost. As an effect, Obama’s budget is projected to increase from $63.3 billion to $82.5 billion in 2016. The Obama administration recently proposed $215 billion in government funding to support genetically-based treatments, which will play an important role in precision medicine by offering tailor-made treatments to patients that are based on genetic makeup.

Sovaldi Urges Negotiation

The recent push to allow drug price negation comes after a campaign against an expensive, life-saving drug. Solvaldi, a drug designed to fight against hepatitis C, has the ability to cure nearly all patients currently suffering from the liver-wasting disease, but that cure comes with a very hefty price tag. With the ill looking for good health, and executives looking at the balance sheet, the question once again rises whether Big Pharma cares about profit or people.

The post Obama’s New Budget Aims to Make Biotech Treatments More Affordable appeared first on Citizens Report.

Apple technology is moving into the health system, and U.S. hospitals are welcoming it with open arms.

Apple Inc.’s HealthKit service is making its name in major hospitals, allowing doctors to monitor patients from a distance and at a lower cost. The revolutionary advance holds a lot of potential for the future of health care.

A Closer Look

The HealthKit was introduced by Apple as part of the iOS 8 movement in 2014.

“The new Health app gives you an easy-to-read dashboard for your fitness and health data. It shows the heart rate, calories burned, cholesterol and all kinds of other data,” according to Apple’s website.

The multibillion dollar company also adds that users can record important personal health information like blood type and allergies.

All of the information can be accessed directly from your lock screen, so caregivers can utilize the stored information to better assist patients during emergencies.

What It Means For You

Systems like the HealthKit allow doctors to keep an eye out for early signs of trouble and respond accordingly. It is a form of virtual care, if you will.

According to Reuters, 14 out of 23 top American hospitals have started a pilot program for Apple’s HealthKit service.

An IDC Health Insights researcher estimates that 70% of healthcare organizations around the world will invest in this technology by 2018.

What Do Doctors Think?

“If we had more data, like daily weights, we could give the patient a call before they need to be hospitalized,” said Chief Clinical Transformation Officer Dr. Richard Milani.

Dr. Milani is not the only supporter of the new technological-health move. Sumit Rana, chief technology officer at Epic Systems, said the timing for mobile health tech to gain ground is just right.

“We didn’t have smartphones ten years ago, or an explosion of new sensors and devices,” Rana said.

The integration of mobile technology into health is showing promising advance. According to Apple, over 600 developers have already started affiliating with the HealthKit app.

The company has made a push to educate medical institutions and healthcare experts on how to best use the service to their advantage. With more than half of the U.S. population owning an iPhone, companies and hospitals see the benefit of the shift.

As of now, expect to see a greater use of mobile tech in the healthcare system. And don’t be surprised when your physician begins your regular appointment by asking to see your phone.

The post Apple’s New App Makes Health Technological appeared first on Citizens Report.

This is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation disseminated by Big Pharma to protect their already-inflated profit margins.  The politicians who parrot this popular talking point on their behalf are flat wrong — and, we feel, morally suspect.

The fact of the matter is that medical and pharma lawsuits have an absolutely minimal effect on the nation’s health care costs.

Dr. Marty Makary, an associate professor of surgery and health policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said “the notion that frivolous claims are routinely resulting in $100 million payouts is not true.” Tort reform, which many politicians ask for, would have a marginal impact on health-care costs, and ultimately only serve to further insulate the massive pharma companies from accepting responsibility for the injuries caused by some of their medications.  In fact, when it comes to malpractice lawsuits, study after study show that their costs only make up around 1% of the nation’s $2.6 trillion health-care bill.

Other studies show that a very small percentage of the victims of medical side effects, from prescription drugs and medical devices, decide to sue. Why? Well, for many it’s because of a misunderstanding. Even though a prescription drug like Yaz may have ruined their life, they choose not to sue because they like their doctor and don’t want them getting in trouble.

What the victims don’t realize is that lawsuits for prescription and medical device side effects don’t hurt the doctor. Doctors are protected by something called “informed consent.” These types of lawsuits only go after Big Pharma, and in most cases, these companies pre-bill for the anticipated settlements by charging Americans outrages prices for their medications. 

Big Pharma is getting rich off of drugs that they know can seriously hurt people. In an effort to profit, these companies will downplay the risk of side effects, or even hide the risks altogether.  This is why they prefer to settle such cases out of court.  Innocent people are dying at the hands of Big Pharma, and that is why many Americans are fighting back.

The victims of Yaz, Lipitor, Ocella, transvaginal mesh, Granuflo, and many other drugs have taken the fight to court. Using the power of mass tort lawsuits, these Americans have found a no-risk way to defend themselves. The attorneys they hire only get paid if a case is won, and even then the attorneys only take a small cut.

If you’ve suffered prescription side effect and want to see a list of on-going lawsuits, click here!

The post The Biggest Medical Myth appeared first on Citizens Report.

Ken and Melissa Davert along with their 15-year-old twins Austin and Michaela all suffer from disabilities.  The twins and their mother have a disease which makes their bones extremely fragile called osteogensis imperfecta while Ken has cerebral palsy.

The family says that they’ll be paying nearly $8,000 more per year for medical care after being denied coverage through Obamcare, The Bay City Times reported.  The parents receive their income from Social Security disability payments and also have health insurance through Medicare.

Read More

The post Who did Obamacare deny? appeared first on Citizens Report.