Health Insurance Enrollment Process

Just how much is the consumer liable for payment in respect of health insurance by the employer? In a 2013 report, employee benefits and health care consultant Milliman has highlighted key findings related to rising health care costs for a typical American family of four.

The Milliman Medical Index (MMI) shows that the total cost of health insurance for a family of four averages $ 22,030. Of this, the employer usually covers $ 12,866 of the cost and the remaining $ 9,144 is left in employee contributions. The employee is responsible for paying the premiums of health plans and out-of-pocket costs such as premiums, deductibles and coinsurance.

With such a large part covered by employers, many consumers do not realize the full cost of health care, but the reports find that families are indeed see a larger increase in costs that employers in over the past four to five years. To put it in perspective, the total cost of health care covered by the employee and the employer, for a family of four is almost equal to the cost of annual tuition at a public college in the state.

To see what other common household costs are comparable to employee health care, see the infographic below.

US Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad are co-sponsoring a new and revised the draft parity law mental sickness that will soon be sent to the floor of the house for approval, reported Kaiser Network and CQ Today .

Bill would require health insurers to provide equal coverage for physical conditions and mental health.

A similar measure was blocked because the legislator considers that it would cost $ 4 billion over the next decade. To cope with the costs, Congressmen Kennedy and Ramstad included a ban on specialty hospitals owned and operated by doctors to save money.

How would a ban on specialty hospitals cut costs?

Opponents of specialty hospitals say these facilities tend to make expensive medical procedures and to attract patients who are healthier and have better insurance. This leaves other hospitals with uninsured patients more and more sick - increased costs for everyone

They also argue that it is unfair to doctors to refer patients to facilities health care which they have a financial interest, according to a report (PDF file.) Congress of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

Some Republican lawmakers advocate specialty hospitals, stressing that they provide better quality care and promote innovative medical procedures.

Article Kaiser did not say what chance had the measure to the House, but the parity of mental health gains consciousness.

The new bill is almost track the law passed last month that extended a law banning insurers to set different maximum lifetime and annual limits on mental health benefits.

last year, the member of Congress father Patrick Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy, sponsored a bill on parity of similar mental health that was adopted in the US Senate.

Quick update : the House is expected to approve the bill, wrote the WSJ Health Blog. More than half of the House is co-sponsoring the measure, which essentially guarantees its passage.

But because it is different from the version the Senate, lawmakers from both houses of Congress will have to compromise on the provisions of the bill before sending it to the president.

Aetna and CIGNA, two of the largest health insurance companies of the nation, have decided that they will pay physicians to make appointments online with patients, reported Philadelphia Inquirer .

How medical appointments online work?

"e-consult" is more or less a short questionnaire for patients to describe their symptoms. Then a professional doctor or health can then communicate with patients through email or phone. If necessary , doctors can also ask the patient to come into their office.

apply to e-consults But doctors and patients expressed will not do the full job. Why? the patients are frequently misdiagnosed.

Dr. Janet Specter medical Group in Marple Commons guessed their patients get misdiagnosed approximately 80 percent of the time.

regarding the payment of doctors, an insurer might pay $ 25 e-consult and up to $ 100 for an office visit.

until now, the practice e-consult has not really taken. in California, many doctors are capable of meeting -you online, but only a small percentage actually uses the technology.

"Actual use of e-consults is just incredibly low," said Medem CEO Edward Fotsch. Medem offers about 70 000 doctors appointments online capabilities.

But still, some expect online doctors visits for more popular in the future.

"It's still pretty much in its infancy, although I think it will increase," said Jonah Frohlich, senior officer at the California HealthCare Foundation.

If you've ever wondered how your health insurance company done regarding the claims and payment for doctors, a former three-year star system may tell you

More than 130 health insurance companies were rated and ranked by Athenahealth, Inc. . - .. a company providing medical business management tools for doctors

Each insurer is assessed based on a number of different factors. The most important factors are how quickly an insurance company makes payments to physicians, how they resolve the claims, and how many claims they deny.

This year, the most effective insurance company Aetna, Inc.

Here Aetna statistics, according Athenahealth - they take on average 27 days to pay doctors for their services solve 96 percent of the claims on the first try, and to deny that 5.9 percent of applications, reported wall. Street Journal

The next best was insurer CIGNA - they pay doctors an average of 33 days, set 96 percent of applications, and refuse to 6.6 percent

the worst performance wasn '. Does a private insurer, but the Medicaid program in the state of New York. They take an average of 137 days to pay doctors, solve only 57 percent of requests, and deny 39 percent.

This is the third year of rating of the insurer, wrote the WSJ article, in order to bring more transparency in the health care industry and health insurance.

That these rankings and performance statistics are quite accurate is disputed, but probably at least provides an overview of how an insurer operates.

It has been a while since our last post on the 08 presidential election, but we thought now was as good a time as any to start talking about the health care policies of both candidates.

After a battle between Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama, Senator Obama throughout the year came as the presumptive Democratic candidate.

Arizona Senator John McCain had an impressive performance for the Republicans to come back to win the New Hampshire primary and win the nomination after the political thought his campaign was all but dead.

But now that the primary season is in the past, what our candidates have in store for the future?

Senator McCain favors a system where the private market takes control to bring down prices. He is even willing to provide generous tax credit for individuals and families.

Senator Obama on the other hand is looking for the government to intervene and demand that all children have insurance, and imposed restrictions on health insurance companies so they can not not deny coverage for everyone.

Obama also promised that it can reduce annual premiums of health insurance plans an average American family $ 2,500.

It was just an intro to what is to come in the presidential campaign of 08. health care in the coming months, we will go further in the reform plans of the senator's health care McCain and Senator Obama and keep the latest from the candidates health care.

We also want to know what you think about each candidate's health care plan. - The comments section is now open for business

Yesterday, the city of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the State. accusing the Commissioner of Insurance to allow health insurance companies to discriminate against women

An article in the Los Angeles Times, women pay as much as 39% percent more for health insurance that men - and state law confirms this disparity.

The Health Insurance California law allows what is known as "gender rating", which allows insurers to consider gender when they set premiums of a candidate.

" the Legislature explicitly lists gender as a factor to consider. Until the Legislature changes the law or courts decide otherwise, we will respect the law, "said a spokesman of the Commissioner of Insurance

The Times article quoted the :. wording of the law

"Unless prohibited by law, the premium price or incremental costs because of sex of a person when it is based on objective criteria, valid and current statistical and actuarial data or sound underwriting practices are not prohibited. "

The reason behind the concept of scoring between the sexes is that women apparently have a higher risk of injury and illness. Last year, actuaries to one of the largest California insurers determined women are more at risk using their data on health care.

But officials argue that San Francisco is gender discrimination and should be banned.

"a lot of times, women are priced out of private health coverage because of discriminatory practices by insurance companies," said Dennis Herrera, city attorney of San Francisco.

The question is, however, already be seen in Sacramento. The State lawmakers are considering two different bills that would ban gender rating health insurance.

If one of these bills passed, Herrera would drop the suit.

There is certainly a moral standard by the test. First, the dimension of equality seems to be reasonable if supported with hard statistics. Secondly, how can it be anything other than discrimination?

much looking back on 08 we have seen ups and downs. And constant "down", as any observer interested in health care knows, is the health care industry and insurance.

High costs, high costs for care, bonuses high health insurance.

So what is to come in 09?

some members of the United States Senate staff predict that the healthcare reform will indeed occur in 09. According to the Washington Office CCH, these staff members spoke to an Alliance for health reform and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation forum in Washington, DC

the following are excerpts of what they had to say:

"We have a great opportunity this year to get the reform of health care is if everyone is willing to work together on it," said consultant Republican health policies for the Senate Finance Committee, Mark Hayes.

"I do not think Senator Kennedy has never been more confident in our ability to actually hold the promise of national health reform we are right now, "said John McDonough, a US Senator Edward Kennedy Collaborating Centre.

"window is open very wide and all options are on the table," said Jocelyn Moore, a spokesman for US Senator Jay Rockefeller.

What is coming? Only time will tell.

Last week we published on where we were in the debate over health care reform, and it seemed we were far enough along.

But maybe we are not.

President Barack Obama seems to be in political trouble when it comes to health insurance and reform health care.

Why?

one hand, it tries to push Republicans spend significant political capital to push through an economic stimulus plan of nearly $ 800 billion.

on the other, it becomes heat from liberal Democrats who want to keep expenses to go and get their health care and health insurance program completed with full control and legislative branches executive.

The big question is how can President Obama justify spending hundreds of billions on an economic recovery, a hundred billion on health care reform, and we are committed to reducing the deficit in half before his first term is over?

"If you go in the country with hundreds of billion fiscal stimulus ... it becomes very difficult for them to say," And now for my real agenda: the expansion of health care for hundreds of billions of dollars, "said Robert Bixby, executive director of a group of bipartisan fiscal surveillance

We can not help but see the point here Bixby.

What is more, President Obama said he wants to fight against Medicare, one of the most important programs of the nation's health care benefits, as well as safety social.

According to Fix to the Washington Post, every president for 40 years, has promised to change these enormous benefit programs, only to see take a back seat to more pressing priorities (as as a recession / economic crisis).

Will health reform suffer? Perhaps.

In an article by Consumer Reports, the authors state that there are seven signs of an individual health insurance plan could be "junk." We thought that we address some of their demands and provide an alternative look at what they said

• claim :. never buy a plan with limited benefits or a map labeled "no major medical."
  first, do not buy any business plan that is not healthy reputation. If an unknown labels insurance plan "not major medical" then it probably is not a society that is treated.

  When there is a warning against "limited benefit" it may actually be misleading . Those looking to reduce their monthly premiums and want to "cut the fat" from their health plan (ie do not want to pay for the benefits that they will not use), a plan with limited benefits could be a viable option.

  for example, a single male would not pay for maternity care for its individual health insurance plan, but even male would pay for maternity care under a plan sponsored by the employer. This is because everyone pays benefits and shares a pool with the coverage of the employer.

• the :. claim coverage limits must not be less than $ 100,000
  This statement is to the right of misleading bat. That suggests almost every plan you are looking for will be thin on the overall limits of coverage (in terms of insurance, this is called the lifetime maximum coverage). This is not the case.

  Consumer Reports is right when they say your life limit should not be less than $ 100,000 - but the maximum lifespan for most plans reputable insurers will come around $ 1 to $ 2 million. And by the way, maximum service life million will not be super-size your premiums

• Claim: .. Lower premiums mean insurers trimming benefits
  again, the article is misleading. Your health insurance costs are all about balance and risk sharing. If you have more generous benefits minus costs off-pocket, and lower deductibles, you'll have higher monthly bills for your coverage. lower premiums might mean fewer benefits, but that does not mean a "junk" regime by all means.

  The key here is to balance what you can afford for your monthly bill with what the costs of care you can cover you (pay $ 50 for a doctor's visit instead of 20 $ and you can find lower premiums).

The real thing to remember is health insurance is not like buying an ice cream cone. It is a complicated product with many details. If you're not sure what you should buy or you are afraid that you will miss some of the fine print, speak with your insurance agent for advice.

Each month, the Kaiser Family Foundation did a follow-up survey that is specifically devoted to health care and health insurance.

their results of this survey are quite perceptive, and provide a decent gauge where the current public opinion is regarding the health industry

Here are just some juicy tidbits April tracking poll, as reported by medical News Today :.

• 59% say that the reform of health care is "more important than ever"
• 36% skipped doctor and check dentist ups because of high costs
• 26% that someone in their household had trouble paying the health care bills in the past year
• 71% support raising taxes for the high income Americans to pay for the reform of health care
• 67% "strongly" or "somewhat" in favor of a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans

So what does that mean?

we see that the public option begins to lean heavily in the direction of "act now" on health care and reform of health insurance, and a growing number of Americans are beginning to feel the burn of rising costs.

politically, this is great news for legislators itching to pass the sweeping reform. The Kaiser survey suggests they will have the support of the majority, and may be able to push through legislation the widest and most complete in the recent history of health care.

But take these polls with a grain of salt. While they are a snapshot of public opinion in this, things can change, as a wink - especially with our current economic problems and variables

And as most can guess, Democrats and Republicans do not. so agree on how we will reform.

Ah the joys of health care policy.

This week, US Senator Edward Kennedy unveiled a whopper of a health care plan and insurance reform, comes to a big bill 651-page.

We haven, AOT had a chance to read the entire bill, but the provisions are similar to those described by legislators in the US House of Representatives.

bill Senator Kennedy, AOS includes the creation of a health insurance exchange where Americans can shop for coverage in a market highly regulated health insurance companies won, AOT be able to reject applicants for pre-existing conditions.

Under the Kennedy bill, individuals would be required to obtain health insurance, but waivers are available for those who really can not afford it, reported New York Daily News .

A great new Senator Kennedy introduced into the fray of health insurance / health reform long-term care insurance.

LTC is designed to help those who need nursing and health care services for long periods of time to help them recover from injury or illness. All need constant care for more than two months could be considered as long-term care.

While everyone may need long-term care, for example if a person was seriously injured in a car accident, long-term care is most needed by the elderly in homes nursing and assisted living.

would actually help seniors pay for health care services they need in their own homes, rather than forcing a person to move into a nursing home.

Americans would be able to get coverage for $ 65 a month by the federal government and not get less than $ 50 a day in benefits. You, AOD have to pay premiums for at least five years to get the benefits, however. Young Americans can buy this coverage as well for as little as $ 5 per month.

The idea is to help people plan how They, Äôll get their care as they age, and give them access to health care when they need it. It can also help reduce nursing home care costs, which are exorbitant.

With all the baby boomers approach the Golden Years, Kennedy timed this provision well enough. We'll see how it AOS received the pass for weeks.

Last night, President Obama held a style meeting "town hall" for a special ABC News with Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer.

At the meeting, President Obama took questions about health reform and talked a lot about how he sees it down.

president covered a lot of different topics such as why the government should participate in the reform and discussed the potential public plan to compete with private health insurance plans.

Here are some excerpts, courtesy of ABC News

In a survey not so surprising to USA Today / Gallup, the data show that Americans are Amped on reforming the health insurance system and health care, but they are not so sure about how to pay for it.

Fifty-six percent of respondents prefer Congress and the president from major health reforms this year, while only 33 percent oppose, reported USA Today .

How should we pay for such legislation, however, is relatively large. The most popular idea for the payment of the reform is with the employer's money. About 61 percent of respondents said they prefer requiring employers to provide health benefits or pay a fee to help employees pay for coverage

An increase taxes for most Americans rich is also on the table -. And 58 percent favor that idea. Finally, USA Today reports, about half of respondents said they prefer an increased fee for soft drinks.

When real health benefits were thrown on the block to pay for reform, support decreases. A majority of 53 percent opposed taxing health insurance plans if they cover more than a certain level of care and an even larger majority oppose cutting Medicare.

The biggest question remains political. How legislators can keep them happy voters in drafting a bill that will have a positive impact on the system?

It is now mid-July, we will see how things progress (and increase) the date August trades.

Although Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats debate on the cost of the reform of health care, another storm is brewing and it is an evil :. the issue of abortion

In short, the Bill 't contain language prohibiting federal funding of abortion. Without this, it could be left to a (newly created) Health Services Advisory Committee to decide what "essential benefits" an insurance plan supported by the government should provide.

In 1976 Hyde Amendment explicitly prevents the federal government from using taxpayer money to fund abortion through Medicaid. However, if the government is sponsoring its own competitive level, or whether it contributes to the creation of a new market in which the public can choose from different private health insurance plans, the Hyde Amendment is not applicable.

This n 't sit well with pro-life. "Unless you can specifically exclude abortion, it will be part of any federalized health care system," said Charmaine Yoest, executive director of Americans United for Life.

Nineteen Democrats have already Pelosi wrote to say they "can not support any proposal for health care unless it excludes abortion from the scope of any defined government plan or health insurance subsidized. "

President Obama has so far tried to remain neutral on the issue, saying:" I think it's appropriate for us to understand how to deliver only on cost savings and not to be distracted by the abortion debate, "in an interview with CBS News. But it is doubtful that it can avoid the question too long, and the firestorm which is potentially fatal.

Holiday shmoliday.

The legislators were hard at work this weekend. Specifically, Senator Max Baucus who circulated a comprehensive proposal for its effort of a year to draft a bipartisan health care legislation.

But after reading it does not include a public option and calls for additional costs from insurance companies, all we could think was, eh? Looks like a good way to alienate Republicans and Democrats alike.

Or is it a clever calculation to appeal to lawmakers like Senator Olympia Snowe J., which could help to get the bill passed at all? Even so, the proposal will have to win the support of other Republican Senate Finance Committee in the "group of six" including Senators Charles E. Grassley and Michael B. Enzi.

We also believe that will be interesting to see how Mr. Baucus jibes plan with proposals President Obama sets in his speech to Congress tomorrow ... not to mention some other legislators. As it all unfolds, the blog of New York Times prescriptions offers a great look on some of the key players to watch:

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota
Huge promoter of the co-op health insurance option he. gave the public plan "dead" a few weeks ago, saying he did not have the votes to pass.

senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine
If the public option is rejected, these senators could be brought on board, providing crucial votes to Democrats.

Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California
head of the Committee on Energy House. He heard it does not represent a bill that provides a "windfall" for the federal insurance industry.

Representative Raul Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona
The progressive House leader. No bill has a chance without her support and insists on a public option.

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Democrat of South Dakota
fiscally conservative Blue Dogs leader. The Sandlin member wants to mitigate the law and steer clear of big spending and prefer not to have a public option.

While Max Baucus struggle to forge a bipartisan consensus in the committee that we ask is how Democrats can pass a draft background health reform law ... and not liquidate a fractured party.

If you thought Sen. Olympia vote Snowe for insurance and health care of health of Senator Max Baucus reform bill was a big deal, you're right.

Not only the vote of the Committee established the bill for final approval in the full Senate, but it now gives reformers (including the White House), an important opportunity to put the Bill without resorting to reconciliation.

Now, reconciliation is an escape procedure that allows the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes. Only if a bill is linked to the federal budget reconciliation can occur.

So obviously the health reform qualifies.

the reconciliation Democrats have long held ultimate trump card in case they could not keep their conservative party comrades and if threatened Republican filibuster. But now, with probable vote of Senator Snowe, the chance of reconciliation is much, much lower.

The White House wants nothing more than to call the draft bipartisan health care bill even if it is only a Republican who sign on. Really, it's like putting lipstick on a ... well you get the picture.

We like polls. (Old Even those few days.)

The latest Wall Street Journal poll / NBC conducted this month offered some interesting ideas that people, you, think about health care reform and those who make the big decisions.

We examined the results of some questions from the question of over 50 survey so we can offer a type what-does-it-all way of analysis.

Here are some of the survey questions, and some of our own analysis:

The full survey results can be found here.

All bills currently in play - Bill of the house and two in the Senate - includes employer mandates but different to what degree. This caused a few layers of questions.

The bill the Senate Finance Committee penalizes employers who do not offer their workers any kind of coverage, but does not extend to making requirements while bills in the House and Senate flat-out health Committee require employers to offer their employees coverage. In fact, they go further: they oblige employers to contribute a significant share of cost (except for small businesses) or pay a fine.

This is a big difference. And it's hard to tell which side the majority leader Harry Reid will look in its merger of the only two bills the Senate.

Now, it is true that about 60 percent of Americans to large enterprises, the point is moot because they get their health insurance through their jobs, as they are covered about 75 percent. But it is not for those who work in small businesses where coverage and employer contributions are not as significant.

It is also important to note that anywhere from 2.3 to 2.6 million companies should choose to pay the penalty rather than offer a health insurance mandate should this version of go in law.

It will be interesting to see what provision is reflected in the final bill, and even more interesting to see how it pans.

The A.F.L-C.I.O. released a TV spot this stowing weekend on the provision of the reform of the health insurance that would tax so-called health insurance plans "Cadillac".

Senate Democrats and President Obama favor taxing robust health plans with premiums of more than $ 8,500 for individuals and $ 23,000 for families. Supporters of the tax say it would generate $ 149 billion and pay for much of the project cost of the health reform law.

But A.F.L-C.I.O. argues that it would unnecessary pressure on employers already pinch pennies to pay for health care. The tax could lead to lower wages and fewer benefits for everyone.

Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), Senate Republicans feel the same way as the A.F.L-C.I.O., A group that almost always sides with Democrats on issues.

In fact, the A.F.L-C.I.O. ad said we need health reform, but we must not tax. Instead, the A.F.L-C.I.O. supports a tax on the rich to help pay for reform.

The House has already approved their draft of the health reform law that would impose a "millionaires' tax for Americans earning more than $ 350,000 per year.

This could mean approval of A.F.L-C.I.O. a GOP candidate in 2012? No chance.

This is the announcement:

The record snowstorm East coast wasn 'enough to help opponents of health care and health insurance reform bill to derail his now likely pass the Senate of the United States does.

In a vote of 60-40, the Senate voted to move the bill on the health front, cutting the Republican obstruction. According to The New York Times , there will be four other procedural votes to get the bill in its final phase, where it should be fully supported on Christmas Eve.

The vote was not surprisingly met with harsh criticism from lawmakers who feel the bill will do more harm than good.

"Our friends on the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission to a historic mistake," said Senator Lamar Alexander.

However, this is a huge, huge political victory for Democrats and President Obama regardless of what the experts say.

Thus, as a result, Democrats on Capitol Hill are cheering.

"There is no political talks. We are not talking ballot. It is about people. It is about life and death in America. It is about human suffering, and given the chance to relieve this suffering, we must. the citizens of each of our States have written to tell us they are broken because of our health care system broken, "said Senate majority Leader Harry Reid.

Although only about half of that statement is probably true, if this bill actually sets all is a very big question mark We really hope that it works;. for the good of us all

A study by the National Health Survey of 07 revealed children 6 7 million children in the US are not covered by a health insurance policy. In addition, 1 to 4 insured children lack adequate coverage for their health needs and children from 4 to 10 lacked comprehensive and continuous care as defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

As we know, the program of the State Children Health Insurance (SCHIP) was initially enacted by Congress in 1997 and recently expanded by President Obama. SCHIP is a government assistance program that provides health insurance coverage for children in families with low incomes.

So why are there still nearly 7 million uninsured children in America, despite the existence of this program?

Well, it's partly a question of cost. Like the expansions in Medicaid prosed reform projects of the current health, giving more children access to coverage paid by the government is a big expense.

There is also a question of the location of children who qualify and reach about the SCHIP program. There are many families who are not yet aware exist SCHIP.

Children without insurance as disease may contribute to the overall health of young Americans. There have been many different studies that link a lack of health insurance with poorer general health - and even death.

So the point is, we will make the health care reform that does not forget the children.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration met representatives of the insurance industry, law enforcement and other government officials on Thursday to discuss the legislature to fight against Medicare and Medicare fraud.

The Attorney General Eric Holder, Medicare fraud costs the government $ 60 billion per year. Holder and the Obama administration say current efforts to end the fraud was not efficient enough.

Article USA Today suggests a productive meeting that the public and private sectors have agreed to share data proactively and improve coordination.

Obama also plans to extend the prevention of health care fraud and Enforcement (HEAT), which ramp up law enforcement efforts against fraud. HEAT has shown that collaboration between the public and private sectors helps to fight Medicare fraud and recovered $ 2.2 billion last year.

Some key action items in this "top of the fraud" include the use of less sensitive identification numbers instead of Social Security numbers and educating families about conservation private information. A "pre-payment" system was also proposed. When fraud is suspected, the government delay Medicaid payments for reasonableness rather than "pay and chase" the author as it currently operates.

Holder believes coordination between the health sector HEAT and will make the process smoother and easier to apply.

Because Medicare fraud costs the government and families so much money each year, it's a good thing that the Obama administration is cracking.

Soon, employers and insurance companies will be required to change the group health insurance benefits to meet new laws that improve the insurance coverage provided by the employer mental health and addictions.

The law of parity of mental health original Act Addiction 08 Paul Wellstone equity and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and entered into force in October 09, but improvements the regime were added last month.

The new law requires all employers to plans offer mental health benefits coverage equal to that of medical and surgical care. The law is applicable to companies and group health plans with more than 50 workers.

These days, health professionals accept mental health conditions as serious and treatable diseases. According to the American Institute of Stress, mental health issues cause 61 percent of work absences each year, 65-85 percent of terminations and 80 to 0 percent of accidents.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost $ 3 billion in 2012 and premiums increase by 0.4 percent. The additional costs for employers that add the benefits will be less than 1.5 percent, while employers could potentially save money from lower absenteeism.

Added an insurance coverage for mental health conditions can be a way for employers to lead ultimately reduce the cost of health care and to keep them happy and healthy employees . We think it's probably a good thing.

Speaking of states taking on the reform of the health status Georgia Senator Preston Smith introduced two Georgia health insurance bills he believes will change the insurance costs in the state for the better.

The first bill would allow small businesses form a coalition and ensure all employees as a large group. This would allow small businesses spread the health risks of their employees in a larger pool, reduce costs and make more affordable health insurance plans for small businesses.

other Senator Smith bill would eliminate annual and lifetime limits benefits for certain policies. It would also give children the opportunity to stay on their parents' policies until age 25. Finally, the second bill would prohibit insurance companies to cancel policies and deny claims based "contractual omissions or inaccuracies innocent", reported Atlanta Journal-Constitution .

Although Senator Smith defends the bill as a way to protect the residents of Georgia, everyone agrees. Kirkland McGhee, vice president and regional councilor for Kaiser Permanente, said the bill will ultimately leads to higher health insurance rates for residents and it would be harder for people to get coverage.

It will be interesting to see if these bills catch any wind - especially because these reforms are very similar to what is proposed at the federal level.

The House voted overwhelmingly a bill last night which would repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The bill removes the health insurance companies to be exempted from competition laws. He hits a major political victory in the House to show a glimmer of bipartisanship just before the summit on health care.

The legislators hope that the abandonment of the McCarran-Ferguson Act will lower premiums on insurance markets by increasing competition and giving consumers more choices.

Whether the repeal of this law will reduce health insurance costs is highly questionable.

Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of AHIP said: "The rhetoric surrounding McCarran-Ferguson repeal does not match the reality of the situation. Health insurance is one of the most regulated industries in America at both the federal level and the state. The law is extremely limited in scope and has nothing to do with competition in the industry of health insurance ... the real focus should be on treating the increasing cost of medical care, which put an unsustainable burden on families, employers, and the federal budget. "

The Congressional Budget Office has determined that the repeal of the antitrust exemption law would not make a significant impact on the federal budget or the health insurance premiums last year.

time will tell whether the repeal of the law will help reduce health insurance costs for consumers and increase competition. However, with the amount the health insurance companies are already regulated, it can not be a significant change.

Restaurants are beginning a controversial practice in San Francisco by adding health insurance costs for customer invoices. Instead of increasing the price of menu items, the restaurants are just label borne separately on the invoice.

This price increase comes from San Francisco Health that provides uninsured residents access to affordable health care services and ongoing. uninsured residents who are not eligible for other public programs can join Healthy San Francisco. Some residents have even given up private health insurance to sign up for this generous program, which includes prescription drugs, diagnostics and mental health services, and specialty and hospital care.

Healthy San Francisco with many residents each year, but the cost of this program is shifted to employers who are responsible for contributing. Restaurant owners have loads enough and are now just add the menus and invoices.

Restaurant owners defend this practice by saying that the supplement will let you know how many customers the employee health coverage costs. Restaurants are up to opinions on their menus so that the load is not hidden or surprise for guests.

How consumers will react to this new charge?

In the current difficult economic times, it does not seem natural to add additional cost to consumers. Many people try to save money and may not appreciate the charges.

The practice fee is common in other industries such as the travel and hospitality industry. Airlines added fuel costs, the hotels add housekeeping bills, but restaurants adding Medicare costs? It does not seem normal.

The Chicago Tribune is concerned that this practice will spread rapidly to other restaurants. They believe that employee health insurance costs are no different than electricity, property, rent and other costs that are necessary to run a business. There is nothing to stop restaurants to add these expenses as well.

Hopefully the practice of adding health insurance costs remains in San Francisco.

House and Senate Democrats have worked hard in recent days to develop a draft final health care bill and unite their caucus. But many Democrats are still on the fence frustrated by lack details on the content of the final bill and its cost.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not had time to estimate the overall cost of this new bill, it seems that most legislators are sort of in a holding pattern .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will soon approve the draft Senate bill and the additional package of changes, reported The New York Times . But House Democrats have promised a CBO estimate before voting, so it is difficult to assess what will happen.

There is another problem with the bill: abortion. Many Democrats are still not satisfied with the language of abortion and were threatening to vote against it for weeks. Although rumors are that these members of the House are bluffing.

Another controversial provision in the bill is a student loan program, which would give the government the power to make loans to students instead of guaranteeing loans to private companies. This part of the reform bill would likely add to the deficit and fuel opposition to his already massive cost.

The road mounting blocks keep daily for Democrats and their health care and health insurance bill.

The reform of health care will allow states to expand Medicaid to begin soon aujourd 'hui. The Medicaid expansion was a major piece of legislation on health care and expand coverage to low-income childless adults for the first time. The few states that already provide assistance for low-income adults will revive and expand their programs.

According to McClatchy , the low-income people who earn 133 percent of the poverty level, about $ 14,404, or below will be eligible for assistance. Families of four earning up to $ 29,325.50 will be eligible for expanded Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this change could provide 15 million people with Medicaid insurance.

states currently pay about 40 percent of Medicaid costs. If states extend now they have to pay the costs of the expansion until the federal government starts paying in 2014. Some states have already cut Medicaid spending while others want the federal government to waive rules aimed at reforming state programs and receive funding.

Jonathon Seib, a political adviser to Health in Washington state aid, "We try to take an existing commitment of dollars of state and stretch further. "

States are beginning to explore options for making the most of their dollars and federal funding. Many states have programs that provide assistance to people who can not afford coverage or are not eligible for coverage.

That states expand coverage gradually or all at once, Medicaid must comply with the 2014 reform requirements States are still waiting for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provide more information on the expansion that will help them make decisions for the future.

Now that health care reform is a done deal, there will be a lot of questions about what will happen and how long.

The Washington Post was kind enough to provide a nice list of the specific arrangements for reform dates.

This is what is to come:

0 days after signed into law ... All Americans with pre-existing health conditions can purchase coverage in high-risk pools.

six months after signed into law ... Health insurance companies prohibited from denying coverage when policyholders get sick, the children can not be denied coverage , coverage limits allowed life, and children can stay on their parents' plan until 26 years of

in the year ... seniors who have exhausted the initial benefits to their Medicare prescription drug plans get a refund of $ 250.

In 2011 ... Insurance companies needed to spend at least 80 percent of premium income on medical care.

By 2013 ... Medicare payroll tax increased for Americans earning more than $ 0,000 per year.

By 2014 ... the employer and the effective individual mandate, government subsidies to help families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level become available.

By 2018 ... increase in the tax on generous plan "Cadillac" of effective health.