VitalOne Health Insurance Blog

Health insurance companies are constantly in search of ways to save money.  Some of their methods, such as refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions that their underwriters deem too high risk, have drawn fire from consumers and politicians. Now, some insurers are promoting alternative medicine. With some exceptions, consumers pick up the majority of the costs of services like acupuncture and chiropractic, as well as herbal supplements. While most of these remedies are unproven, they have become increasingly popular with consumers. Therefore, promoting it seems to be a win-win situation for insurers.

Kaiser Permanente and Aetna are among the HMOs that offer dietary supplements and herbs to their patients. However, these supplements aren’t covered in most of their health insurance plans. If someone takes a conventional medication, the cost of their prescription will mostly be covered by their insurer, less a small co-payment. If they use a non-prescription herbal supplement instead, the patient must cover the entire cost out-of-pocket. The same applies when someone visits an alternative practitioner as opposed to a physician.  In that respect, it is financially advantageous for insurance companies to encourage the usage of alternative medicine–although they surely won’t admit it.

Some people want Congress to include alternative medicine coverage in the healthcare reform bill. Do you wish alternative medicine was covered in your health insurance plan?

There is yet another food scare to warn you about and it could affect your health.

Some people are refusing to eat canned foods from their pantry. A new consumer report says a potentially dangerous chemical called bisophenal A is being used in the production of hard plastics including plastic water and baby bottles.

The chemical has also been found in certain name-brand canned foods, according to a study. In its December issue, Consumer Reports tested soups, juice, tuna and green beans, and found that 19 name-brand foods contain some amount of BPA.

And organic foods were not exempt — they didn’t always have lower levels of BPA than non-organic foods. Some labels also declared their cans BPA-free, but this claim wasn’t always true either.

Consumer Reports found that the highest levels of bisphenol-A were found in Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake, Progresso Vegetable Soup and Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Soup.

The study also found much-maligned BPA in Similac Advance Infant Formula and Nestle Juicy Juice in a can.

Both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain that low levels of BPA exposure are safe for people and will not affect your health.

What to do
You can and avoid putting plastics the microwave (where they can release dangerous chemicals when heated) or the dishwasher (where they can degrade in the heat and excessive moisture). You can also choose smart plastics that use polyethylene (#1, #2, and #4) and polypropylene (#5), which require the use of less toxic additives. They also are non-chlorinated.

You can also select freezer bags or fresh produce which is also healthier than canned goods.

Lenneice A. Drew is an experienced journalist currently focused on healthcare reform. She is working to help others achieve better lives by finding affordable health insurance alternatives and reporting stories related to the healthcare industry. She lives in Miami, Florida.

If you chug back a couple of diet sodas a day, you may want to reconsider your choice of beverage.

One study examined more than 3,000 women for 11 years, and found those who drank two or more diet sodas a day were at double the risk for kidney damage.

The researchers did not learn whether it was the soda or the artificial sweetener in the drink that caused the damage.

“You can’t conclude that the sodas caused this problem conclusively but it suggests that there’s an affect on kidney function so people have to be aware that there’s a possible issue in doing anything in excess,” said Dr. David Goldfarb, kidney specialist with NYU Langone Medical Center.

Goldfarb said this is one of the first studies on the effects of diet soda and a lot more needs to be done before people make drastic changes.

Moderating your diet soda intake is the best thing to do for now.

Lenneice A. Drew is an experienced journalist currently focused on healthcare reform. She is working to help others achieve better lives by finding affordable health insurance alternatives and reporting stories related to the healthcare industry. She lives in Miami, Florida.

The H1N1 may spread worse because people say they can’t afford to to stay home if they get sick.

Public health experts are raising concerns that workers who deal with the public, like waiters and child care employees, are jeopardizing others by reporting to work sick because they do not get paid for days they miss for illness.

Tens of millions of people, or about 40 percent of all private-sector workers, do not receive paid sick days, and as a result many of them cannot afford to stay home when they are ill. Even some companies that provide paid sick days have policies that make it difficult to call in sick, like giving demerits each time someone misses a day.

Public health experts say policies like these encourage many people with H1N1, commonly called swine flu, to report to work despite official warnings from the government and most companies that they should stay home.

Some people who are really caught on a weekly income might say they are desperate for money and that they are going into work even though they are sick.

Many of these financially squeezed workers might also send their flu-stricken children to school, infecting others. Many will not see a doctor because they do hot have health insurance. Although there are affordable health insurance plans.

Well before President Obama declared H1N1 a national emergency, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was emphasizing that businesses should adopt “flexible leave policies” to allow workers with the flu to stay home. In one advisory, the C.D.C. encouraged employers “to develop nonpunitive leave policies.”

Despite such recommendations, some employees say they have no choice but to go to work sick.

Lenneice A. Drew is an experienced journalist currently focused on healthcare reform. She is working to help others achieve better lives by finding affordable health insurance alternatives and reporting stories related to the health care industry. She lives in Miami, Florida.

I recognize that healthcare reform is a serious issue that has the potential to change the lives of millions of Americans. I also acknowledge that many people are worried that such a bill will endanger their existing health insurance plans; their fears shouldn’t be downplayed. However, when healthcare reform proposals are compared to “domestic terrorism”, isn’t that going a bit too far? North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx recently took to the House of Representatives floor to express her vehement opposition to the Democrat-written bill. The representative was quoted in the Associated Press as saying that the nation has more to fear from the bill’s potential passage than it does from terrorists. While hyperbole is a standard feature of modern politics, Foxx has reached a new level.

One of the identifying features of terrorism is the intent to cause a feeling of terror in a population.  Many may disagree with Nancy Pelosi’s plans of healthcare reform that include a public option, but keep in mind that congresspersons of both parties genuinely believe that what they are doing will help America. They may be wrong–and their policies might have disastrous results–but neither Democrats nor Republicans are purposely trying to destroy the United States. Therefore, comparisons to the likes of Osama bin Laden are off-base.  The worst thing about her comments is that they serve to cheapen the legitimate concerns people have. Foxx doesn’t like the bill because she believes it will allow the government to force people to buy health insurance, raise taxes, and and give bureaucrats more power. These are all valid arguments that deserve to be debated, but some people may tune them out due to her inflammatory statements.

Our infamously long-winded Vice President once said that he tried to never question a person’s motives, no matter how much he disagrees with their policies. All of our politicians would do well to take that advice. Both parties are striving to achieve what they think is best for America. Their varied opinions on healthcare reform deserve to be discussed civilly, without resorting to the modern equivalent of Godwin’s Law. In my opinion, that would be best for us all.

(Image: U.S. Army under CC 2.0)

Although it seems like the Democrats’ healthcare reform bills have been zooming through Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicts that there will soon be roadblocks.  To the chagrin of the Obama administration, Reid believes that a final bill won’t pass before the ball drops on Times Square and 2009 draws to a close. The White House wanted a bill passed prior to Ryan Seacrest’s countdown to the new year. Why is that so important? Well, 2010 is an election year; the entire Congress will be up for re-election. Judging from the few elections held yesterday, things don’t look good for the Democrats. Their prospects will be even worse if the fight to reform the health insurance industry continues to drag on, instead of  allowing the public’s memory to fade.

Unlike the House of Representatives, which is already close to voting on its bill, the Senate may not begin debate until December. There is some speculation that Reid is waiting for the final cost analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. He commented publicly that he doesn’t want to rush such an important bill. However, he is still striving to pass Obama’s top domestic priority by years’ end. They may be worried that waiting too long will make more likely that this administration’s attempt at providing more affordable health insurance will follow the failing path of Clinton’s.

This new development is just another example of why you shouldn’t wait for the public option if you can afford a health insurance plan now.

The House’s healthcare reform bill looks like it’ll cross the $1 trillion mark, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Many Democrats have promised a bill that would cost less, and initial CBO estimates agreed with them. However, they have since added billions more in funding health insurance for the retired, as well as more spending on public health and increased reimbursements for preventative care services. Some of these provisions are intended to garner more support from important populations, such as senior citizens. These modifications bring the estimated total of the bill to at least $1.2 trillion over ten years.

Breaking the trillion dollar threshold makes reform of the health insurance industry more difficult to achieve. Nancy Pelosi has previously claimed that the bill would cost about $900 billion; still a massive sum, but short of the trillion mark.  It seems to be a sort of psychological block, even among Democrats whom are otherwise supportive of the bill. The new CBO estimate is closer to Republicans’ claims of $1.3 trillion. The big question is whether it’s worth the price. Supporters would argue that the eventual savings from health insurance plans would allow the nation to pay off that debt in time (after all, America managed to pay off its decades-long national debt by the end of Bill Clinton’s second term), but others feel that it’s a pointless gamble.

With all the controversy over the public option proposed by Democrats in their healthcare reform bills, the number of Americans who will actually be covered by the public option is surprisingly low. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi estimates that just six million (2%)  of the population under 65 years of age will choose the government run health insurance program. One out of five individuals who are buying insurance on their own or in a small group (and will participate in the insurance exchanges central to the House’s bill. would take the public option. The most important issue that has been lost in the debate is providing affordable health insurance to the nation, whatever form it takes.

The public plan might not be the panacea to increased health care costs its supporters claim it will be. The people most likely to be attracted to it will be those with pre-existing conditions private insurers are less likely to cover. Therefore, average health insurance quotes would be cheaper with a private plan, steering the healthier segment of the population away from the public option. Less stringent regulations that allow the less healthy to use more medical services and see more specialists would also drive up costs. (Private insurance companies sometimes limit their offerings based on profitability.)

All in all, the public option doesn’t seem to be as far-reaching as first expected, at least for now. Most Americans will continue to have health coverage through their employers. Senior citizens already have Medicare. What about the masses of low-income uninsured individuals and families? It turns out that most of them will be covered through Medicaid, another government program that will be expanded.

(Image: Speaker Pelosi under CC 2.0)

A newly-released survey of human resources professionals suggests that HSAs (or Healthcare Savings Accounts / Flexible Spending Accounts) need a strong legislative antibiotic to ward off a growing epidemic of consumers who are enrolling in higher deductible health care plans in a flat, uncertain economy.

Originally signed into law as a cornerstone of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, HSAs were endorsed by then-President George Bush as a compromise between healthcare industry advocates who insisted at the time that higher co-payments for medical coverage are necessary to make a profit and please their shareholders and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), who lobbied hard for retirees on fixed incomes to obtain public assistance for medications. When the dust settled, the HSA was supposed to be the panacea for skyrocketing healthcare costs.

Shortly after last year’s health insurance open enrollment season, consulting firm Celent released dismal numbers citing the HSA market’s “disappointing early showing”, and projected 12.5 million accounts by 2012. That’s down about four million people than were originally estimated. Even with the additional tax and so-called “catch up” savings incentives for enrollees over age 55 added in, employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage through their workplaces are coming off of a wave of economic uncertainly and every penny counts. Even leading economists with the Government Accountability Office (GAO, the agency in charge of crunching these kinds of numbers) openly admit that given the slow recovery of the current economic climate, HSA enrollment this year will suffer.

“When you tell a worker in this economy that you’re going to take some money out of their pay check each month and then further squeeze them by earmarking the funds for healthcare expenses with a guaranteed loss at the end of 12 months’ time, it’s healthcare suicide,” says James Lloyd, an analyst for the Southeast region of the GAO. “This year will be especially volatile.”

Budget-Friendly HSA Alternatives:

Employers are streamlining their health insurance plans to cut costs. Whereas just a few years ago, according to the GAO, the average U.S. company with more than 100 employees offered three different health insurance plans; you could pretty much count on a high-deductible PPO, a low-deductible PPO and an HMO to choose from when signing up for benefits. Now, more and more employers are promoting the HSA option and/or eliminating any low-deductible, affordable health insurance plan they may have previously offered. Not only do FSAs cost companies less, but they get to share in tax credits too. The trend, according to the Human Resources Association of America and the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, will only continue toward workers converting to individual medical policies. At least until open enrollment time rolls around again in 2012.

Last year, a representative from Texas was the true Republican maverick in the presidential race. Ron Paul may not have won the nomination, but he is still bringing his unique libertarian perspective to Congress’ table. His proposals for healthcare reform are no different. He recognizes that the current health insurance situation is untenable, but is against governmental involvement. Recently, he presented several intriguing bills to the House of Representatives.

1. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2009 would give Americans a 100% tax credit on their health care costs (e.g. prescriptions, hospital stays, doctor visits). Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) with high-deductible health insurance plans would also be tax-free. Low-wage employees who don’t file tax returns can have the credit refunded against their payroll taxes, so the bill would help those who need it most afford healthcare. Currently, only medical expenses that reach over 7.5% of an individual’s income can be deducted.
2. Dr. Paul’s Coercion Is Not Health Care Act of 2009 would forbid the government from enacting a health insurance mandate. There has been some speculation as to the legality of such a mandate. Congressional Democrats, along with the Obama administration, believe that it has to be part of healthcare reform legislation. Their view is that universal coverage must include the young and healthy in order for the insurance pool to afford covering those with pre-existing conditions. This interference in the free market is anathema to Paul. Incidentally, if there is no public option, such a mandate might not be necessary.
3. Finally, his Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act of 2009 would save money through indirect tort reform. This act would establish so-called “negative outcomes insurance”, which would pay off if a patient’s medical treatment goes wrong; it would also offer a tax credit to make the purchase more affordable. The goal is to decrease some of the unnecessary (and costly) testing done in order to avoid malpractice liability, as well as lessen the need for hospitals and physicians to carry billions of dollars in insurance.

As Paul is himself a doctor, his views on the healthcare industry are worth listening to. His opinions tend to be shortchanged in the House because he doesn’t walk in lockstep with either party’s platform, giving his bills little chance of passing.  However, many Americans–who fear socialized medicine, yet acknowledge that we need more affordable health insurance as soon as possible–could find something to applaud in his plans.