Citizens' Oversight Maryland---Maryland Progressives
CINDY WALSH FOR MAYOR OF BALTIMORE----SOCIAL DEMOCRAT
Citizens Oversight Maryland.com
  • Home
  • Cindy Walsh for Mayor of Baltimore
    • Mayoral Election violations
    • Questionnaires from Community >
      • Education Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Housing Questionnaire
      • Emerging Youth Questionnaire
      • Health Care policy for Baltimore
      • Environmental Questionnaires
      • Livable Baltimore questionnaire
      • Labor Questionnnaire
      • Ending Food Deserts Questionnaire
      • Maryland Out of School Time Network
      • LBGTQ Questionnaire
      • Citizen Artist Baltimore Mayoral Forum on Arts & Culture Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Transit Choices Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Activating Solidarity Economies (BASE)
      • Downtown Partnership Questionnaire
      • The Northeast Baltimore Communities Of BelAir Edison Community Association (BECCA )and Frankford Improvement Association, Inc. (FIA)
      • Streets and Transportation/Neighbood Questionnaire
      • African American Tourism and business questionnaire
      • Baltimore Sun Questionnaire
      • City Paper Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Technology Com Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Biker's Questionnair
      • Homewood Friends Meeting Questionnaire
      • Baltimore Historical Collaboration---Anthem Project
      • Tubman City News Mayoral Questionnaire
      • Maryland Public Policy Institute Questionnaire
      • AFRO questionnaire
      • WBAL Candidate's Survey
  • Blog
  • Trans Pacific Pact (TPP)
  • Progressive vs. Third Way Corporate Democrats
    • Third Way Think Tanks
  • Financial Reform/Wall Street Fraud
    • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau >
      • CFPB Actions
    • Voted to Repeal Glass-Steagall
    • Federal Reserve >
      • Federal Reserve Actions
    • Securities and Exchange Commission >
      • SEC Actions
    • Commodity Futures Trading Commission >
      • CFTC Actions
    • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency >
      • OCC Actions
    • Office of Treasury/ Inspector General for the Treasury
    • FINRA >
      • FINRA ACTIONS
  • Federal Healthcare Reform
    • Health Care Fraud in the US
    • Health and Human Services Actions
  • Social Security and Entitlement Reform
    • Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP Actions
  • Federal Education Reform
    • Education Advocates
  • Government Schedules
    • Baltimore City Council
    • Maryland State Assembly >
      • Budget and Taxation Committee
    • US Congress
  • State and Local Government
    • Baltimore City Government >
      • City Hall Actions
      • Baltimore City Council >
        • Baltimore City Council Actions
      • Baltimore Board of Estimates meeting >
        • Board of Estimates Actions
    • Governor's Office >
      • Telling the World about O'Malley
    • Lt. Governor Brown
    • Maryland General Assembly Committees >
      • Communications with Maryland Assembly
      • Budget and Taxation Committees >
        • Actions
        • Pension news
      • Finance Committees >
        • Schedule
      • Business Licensing and Regulation
      • Judicial, Rules, and Nominations Committee
      • Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee >
        • Committee Actions
    • Maryland State Attorney General >
      • Open Meetings Act
      • Maryland Courts >
        • Maryland Court System
    • States Attorney - Baltimore's Prosecutor
    • State Comptroller's Office >
      • Maryland Business Tax Reform >
        • Business Tax Reform Issues
  • Maryland Committee Actions
    • Board of Public Works >
      • Public Works Actions
    • Maryland Public Service Commission >
      • Public Meetings
    • Maryland Health Care Commission/Maryland Community Health Resources Commission >
      • MHCC/MCHRC Actions
    • Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition
  • Maryland and Baltimore Development Organizations
    • Baltimore/Maryland Development History
    • Committee Actions
    • Maryland Development Organizations
  • Maryland State Department of Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Public Schools
    • Algebra Project Award
  • Baltimore City School Board
    • Charter Schools >
      • Charter Schools---Performance
      • Charter School Issues
    • Public Schools >
      • Public School Issues
  • Progressive Issues
    • Fair and Balanced Elections
    • Labor Issues
    • Rule of Law Issues >
      • Rule of Law
    • Justice issues 2
    • Justice Issues
    • Progressive Tax Reform Issues >
      • Maryland Tax Reform Issues
      • Baltimore Tax Reform Issues
    • Strong Public Education >
      • Corporate education reform organizations
    • Healthcare for All Issues >
      • Universal Care Bill by state
  • Building Strong Media
    • Media with a Progressive Agenda (I'm still checking on that!) >
      • anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com
      • "Talk About It" Radio - WFBR 1590AM Baltimore
      • Promethius Radio Project
      • Clearing the Fog
      • Democracy Now
      • Black Agenda Radio
      • World Truth. TV Your Alternative News Network.
      • Daily Censured
      • Bill Moyers Journal
      • Center for Public Integrity
      • Public Radio International
      • Baltimore Brew
      • Free Press
    • Far Left/Socialist Media
    • Media with a Third Way Agenda >
      • MSNBC
      • Center for Media and Democracy
      • Public Radio and TV >
        • NPR and MPT News
      • TruthOut
  • Progressive Organizations
    • Political Organizations >
      • Progressives United
      • Democracy for America
    • Labor Organizations >
      • United Workers
      • Unite Here Local 7
      • ROC-NY works to build power and win justice
    • Justice Organizations >
      • APC Baltimore
      • Occupy Baltimore
    • Rule of Law Organizations >
      • Bill of Rights Defense Committee
      • National Lawyers Guild
      • National ACLU
    • Tax Reform Organizations
    • Healthcare for All Organizations >
      • Healthcare is a Human Right - Maryland
      • PNHP Physicians for a National Health Program
      • Healthcare NOW- Maryland
    • Public Education Organizations >
      • Parents Across America
      • Philadelphia Public School Notebook thenotebook.org
      • Chicago Teachers Union/Blog
      • Ed Wize Blog
      • Educators for a Democratic Union
      • Big Education Ape
    • Elections Organizations >
      • League of Women Voters
  • Progressive Actions
    • Labor Actions
    • Justice Actions
    • Tax Reform Actions >
      • Baltimore Tax Actions
      • Maryland Tax Reform Actions
    • Healthcare Actions
    • Public Education Actions
    • Rule of Law Actions >
      • Suing Federal and State government
    • Free and Fair Elections Actions
  • Maryland/Baltimore Voting Districts - your politicians and their votes
    • 2014 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICES
    • Maryland Assembly/Baltimore
  • Petitions, Complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests
    • Complaints - Government and Consumer >
      • Sample Complaints
    • Petitions >
      • Sample Petitions
    • Freedom of Information >
      • Sample Letters
  • State of the Democratic Party
  • Misc
    • WBFF TV
    • WBAL TV
    • WJZ TV
    • WMAR TV
    • WOLB Radio---Radio One
    • The Gazette
    • Baltimore Sun Media Group
  • Misc 2
    • Maryland Public Television
    • WYPR
    • WEAA
    • Maryland Reporter
  • Misc 3
    • University of Maryland
    • Morgan State University
  • Misc 4
    • Baltimore Education Coalition
    • BUILD Baltimore
    • Church of the Great Commission
    • Maryland Democratic Party
    • Pennsylvania Avenue AME Zion Church
    • Maryland Municipal League
    • Maryland League of Women Voters
  • Untitled
  • Untitled
  • Standard of Review
  • Untitled
  • WALSH FOR GOVERNOR - CANDIDATE INFORMATION AND PLATFORM
    • Campaign Finance/Campaign donations
    • Speaking Events
    • Why Heather Mizeur is NOT a progressive
    • Campaign responses to Community Organization Questionnaires
    • Cindy Walsh vs Maryland Board of Elections >
      • Leniency from court for self-representing plaintiffs
      • Amended Complaint
      • Plaintiff request for expedited trial date
      • Response to Motion to Dismiss--Brown, Gansler, Mackie, and Lamone
      • Injunction and Mandamus
      • DECISION/APPEAL TO SPECIAL COURT OF APPEALS---Baltimore City Circuit Court response to Cindy Walsh complaint >
        • Brief for Maryland Court of Special Appeals >
          • Cover Page ---yellow
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Authorities
          • Leniency for Pro Se Representation
          • Statement of Case
          • Questions Presented
          • Statement of Facts
          • Argument
          • Conclusion/Font and Type Size
          • Record Extract
          • Appendix
          • Motion for Reconsideration
          • Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss
          • Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
      • General Election fraud and recount complaints
    • Cindy Walsh goes to Federal Court for Maryland election violations >
      • Complaints filed with the FCC, the IRS, and the FBI
      • Zapple Doctrine---Media Time for Major Party candidates
      • Complaint filed with the US Justice Department for election fraud and court irregularities.
      • US Attorney General, Maryland Attorney General, and Maryland Board of Elections are charged with enforcing election law
      • Private media has a responsibility to allow access to all candidates in an election race. >
        • Print press accountable to false statement of facts
      • Polling should not determine a candidate's viability especially if the polling is arbitrary
      • Viability of a candidate
      • Public media violates election law regarding do no damage to candidate's campaign
      • 501c3 Organizations violate election law in doing no damage to a candidate in a race >
        • 501c3 violations of election law-----private capital
      • Voter apathy increases when elections are not free and fair
  • Maryland Board of Elections certifies election on July 10, 2014
  • Maryland Elections ---2016

January 13th, 2014

1/13/2014

0 Comments

 
The hype with the Affordable Care Act is that it moves to preventative care and it moves people from group living in senior centers to staying in their homes.  Sounds OK if you do not see how it actually works.  As I showed last time, Obama and the ACA is privatizing Medicare and Medicaid into these state health systems, something republicans have been trying to do for years and it is the neo-liberals doing it!  The idea is that to save Medicare for the upper middle-class you have to cull off the middle and working class to do it because after all 1/2 of Medicare spending has been stolen in health institution fraud and/or spent building the NSA spy network.

I wanted to focus on just a few issues in detail to show how detrimental the ACA is not only to all citizens but especially seniors.

THE ORGANIZATIONS SHOUTING OUT FOR ACA KNEW THESE ISSUES EXISTED BUT DELIBERATELY HID THEM FROM THE PEOPLE THEY PRETENDED TO SUPPORT!

So, seniors will stay in their homes as public retirement communities and public senior buildings close.  Don't worry they say, we are training tons of home health care people to come to your home to care for you.  OH, REALLY????

What is actually happening is that the ACA funding for this is not there.....kind of like NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND being an unfunded mandate.  So, all the public health support for seniors are being closed and handed to hedge funds to operate with no money coming to make sure quality care will occur.  WE ARE BEING GHETTOIZED.  Now, seniors were hard hit with fraud from this decade of massive corporate fraud-----savings, pensions, COLA increases eliminated for Social Security-----

A DELIBERATE ATTACK BY WALL STREET ON THE WEALTH GAINED BY BABY BOOMERS WITH OBAMA AND NEO-LIBERALS MAKING SURE WE CAN NOT GET JUSTICE!  ONLY, WHEN A GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS RULE OF LAW IT SUSPENDS STATUTES OF LIMITATION...

Seniors have been deliberately left without the retirement money they worked for and as we see below, the Medicare program that had strong support services for seniors are being dismantled as public health is handed to corporations for profit.  A senior in a senior care facility run by hedge funds as is the case in Baltimore with ManorCare?  Think Charles Dickens level of care for the elderly.  One imagines they will be forced to work with the disabled on menial labor to pay their way....which by the way seniors prepaid through payroll taxes.


ALL OF MEDICARE HAS BEEN PAID BECAUSE REAGAN TRIPLED PAYROLL TAXES IN THE 1980s JUST SO THERE WOULD BE PLENTY FOR BABY BOOMERS.  BUT DID THESE CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR SHARE OF THE PAYROLL TAX?  WE KNOW THAT PAYROLL FRAUD HAS BEEN RAMPANT.

We are not against immigrants coming to America to work and we are not against vocational tracking of students into health care.  What we are against is the outrageously inadequate level of training and knowledge people being sent to homes actually have.  This is serious.  People with chronic illness, people with psychological malady......these are serious and complicated health matters that these people being trained as home health workers have not a clue.  The people doing the job are not bad.....they are often not able to do the job or not trained right.  THAT DOES NOT MATTER....THE GOAL IS GETTING THE CHEAPEST MODEL IN PLACE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT AND LOWER MEDICARE COSTS SINCE THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE TRUST.

Who is going to age into this mess?  Well, me no doubt as I am a regular middle-class professional with average means.  Remember, neo-liberals see the middle-class right now as give and take $200,000.  These are the wage earners that will be able to afford private senior care or the private insurance that allows it.  Right now that is less than 5% of US population.  It is the working/middle class that paid the most into these Trusts and it is these same people getting axed out of care with the ACA.

One thing you see throughout the Affordable Care Act is that there will be nurses and/or nurse practitioner involved in these health businesses taking over public health....including home health care.  As the commenter above pointed out in his review of one global corporation covering senior home health.....THERE WAS NOT A NURSE IN SIGHT.  HE HAD NO MEDICAL SUPERVISOR WITH WHOM TO TALK AND I HEAR THIS IN ALL CASES OF THESE HEALTH BUSINESSES.

You can see the same with education reform by privatization ------school boards filled with business people with no education background.  IT IS DELIBERATE AND IT WILL BREAK DOWN ALL PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS AND ALL STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO PROVIDE QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY.......which is the point of the ACA.....complete deregulation of the health care industry!





Social Security and Medicare taxes

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax Federal social insurance taxes are imposed on employers[15] and employees,[16] ordinarily consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($110,100 in 2012) for Social Security and a tax of 1.45% of all wages for Medicare.[17] For the years 2011 and 2012, the employee's contribution had been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%,[18] but Congress allowed the rate to return to 6.2% for the individual in 2013. [19] To the extent an employee's portion of the 6.2% tax exceeded the maximum by reason of multiple employers, the employee is entitled to a refundable tax credit upon filing an income tax return for the year.[20]



You know what ACA does to Medicare access? It sends most care for seniors and Medicaid to home health care corporations....guess what? Cuts take even that access away!  Actually what Medicare is set to become for most will be the same as Medicaid......MEDICAID FOR ALL SAY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PEOPLE! 

Below you see an industry political piece that tries to scare people into voting against democrats because this ACA policy will gut health care.   This article is truthful as to the effect cuts in funding will have on these private health businesses for home health but as someone that does not want these businesses getting all this Medicare funding.....I do not have sympathy for money lost to this industry.  As reformers cutting cost always say to the health industry-------figure out how to do it cheaper without losing your profits.  AND SO, THE LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING BEGINS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO FAKE THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS AND WHAT PROCEDURES THEY RECEIVE IN ORDER TO PAD PROFITS. 

Home Health Leaders: Unprecedented Medicare Cut Endangers Millions of Seniors' Access to Home Healthcare
November 25, 2013 2:22 PM PR NewsWire



Final Rule disregards input from lawmakers, seniors' advocates, and home health community –

CMS concedes that "approximately 40 percent of providers will have negative margins in CY 2017"(1)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Home health leaders warned that the Home Health Prospective Payment System (HHPPS) Final Rule, released Friday by the Obama Administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), will directly impact the homebound seniors and disabled Americans who are the Medicare program's most vulnerable beneficiaries and will limit their access to the clinically advanced, cost effective home health care they need.

The HHPPS proposed rule initially included a 3.5 percent annual rebasing cut to Medicare home health funding – the maximum allowable under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – which was calculated using an incorrect base year.  While the Final Rule now uses the correct base year (2010), it maintains the maximum annual rebasing cut of 3.5 percent, thereby imposing an unprecedented total rebasing cut of 14 percent over 4 years.

"From start to finish, this is a patient care issue," said Chairman Billy Tauzin, Senior Counsel to the Partnership. "The stated purpose of the Obamacare legislation was to expand Americans' access to healthcare, but this Obamacare regulation will do the exact opposite.  Despite pleas by lawmakers, seniors and stakeholders, CMS has decided to impose unprecedented cuts to the home health services on which the nation's most vulnerable Medicare population depends.  These cuts directly impact homebound seniors in rural, minority, and underserved communities who are among the Medicare program's oldest, sickest, and poorest beneficiaries."

"Despite the concerns expressed by more than 200 bipartisan Members of Congress, leading senior advocacy organizations, and dozens of other stakeholders, CMS chose to cut Medicare home health payments to the fullest extent allowed by the ACA," added Eric Berger, CEO of the Partnership.  "On a technical basis, this rule is also deeply flawed in that required analyses were never conducted on its impact over the full 4 years in which its cuts will go into effect or on the thousands of small businesses and their employees who will be impacted by it." 

"Just as troubling, the actual nature of this Final Rule has not been accurately disclosed," continued Mr. Berger.  "Although CMS releases seem to suggest that the Final Rule provides rebasing relief, the reality is that the cut in the Final Rule is the maximum allowable under the law.  The ACA authorized the Secretary to impose an annual rebasing cut of not more than 3.5 percent of the 2010 Medicare home health standardized payment rate.  The proposed rule exceeded the law in that it incorrectly applied the 3.5 percent cut to 2013 payment rates.  By contrast, the Final Rule applies the maximum allowable 3.5 percent annual cut to 2010.  As a result, all that can be said of the Final Rule is that, by properly replacing 2013 with 2010 as the base year, it no longer exceeds the law."


                               Base Year: 2013         Base Year: 2010

Proposed Rule       3.5%              EQUALS          4.5%

Final Rule                 2.7%              EQUALS           3.5%

"While there are so many people across the country whose health care will be adversely affected by this Final Rule, we are deeply thankful to the many lawmakers who devoted so much of their time and energy in an effort to protect Medicare home health beneficiaries," Mr. Berger added.  "They and the vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries they valiantly serve deserve better than this regulation."

Since the proposed rule was released, tens of thousands of patients, family members, providers, advocates, and state associations have cautioned the Administration that these cuts go too far and will have severe implications on the delivery of skilled home healthcare.  Extensive action was undertaken, including data and policy analyses, grassroots engagement, and extensive direct dialogue.  In addition, letters were filed by leading advocates including AARP, the American Hospital Association (AHA), the National Association of Home Care and Hospice (NAHC), the Visiting Nurses Association of America (VNAA) and many other stakeholders, all of whom expressed concern that the proposed cuts would negatively impact homebound seniors who depend on home health.

"The extraordinary cuts announced on Friday are alarming, especially in light of the deep cuts that Medicare home health has already suffered in recent years," added Senator John Breaux, Senior Counsel to the Partnership.  "Even before these latest cuts, funding for Medicare home health services had been reduced by more than $72 billion since 2009.  When factoring in these additional cuts, two of the nation's leading health care consulting firms – Avalere Health and Dobson|DaVanzo Associates – project that the home health delivery systems in nearly every State will experience net losses by 2017, which greatly jeopardizes seniors' access to high-quality, low-cost home healthcare.  In fact, even CMS concedes – on page 117 of the HHPPS Final Rule – that 'approximately 40 percent of providers will have negative margins in CY 2017' and that more than 8-in-10 of these providers are already experiencing negative margins as a result of pre-existing cuts!  For these reasons, we strongly urge decision makers to protect homebound seniors from this regulation and any further cuts in the weeks and months ahead."

"The fact that this extreme regulation is a result of Obamacare means it cannot help but have political in addition to access implications," concluded Chairman Tauzin.  "The Medicare cuts in the 2010 Obamacare bill angered seniors so much that voters over age 65 helped give Republicans control of the U.S. House in the President's first midterm elections.  These newest Medicare cuts, coming right out of Obamacare, could now put the Democrats' Senate majority in jeopardy when senior voters cast their ballots next November.  Both Democratic and Republican leaders tried to stop the White House from issuing this unprecedented cut, and both were ignored.  Three and a half million seniors depend on home health, they vote, and they are not likely to take these cuts lying down." 


With an estimated 10,000 American seniors entering the Medicare program every day, the Medicare home health benefit is widely recognized as a clinically advanced, cost-effective and patient preferred means for meeting the post-acute and long-term care needs of this rapidly growing patient population. Medicare home health services are delivered to approximately 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries, who are documented as being more likely to be poor, old, sick, and minority than the Medicare beneficiary population as whole.  In light of its importance to millions of seniors and their families, the Medicare home health sector has been one of the nation's leading creators of new jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


_______________________________________________
As we see below a decade ago it was revealed that this growing industry was not functioning properly, had no oversight, and no public transparency.  Now, Baltimore and Maryland are 10 times worse than California in all these regards so one can imagine what this industry looks like in Maryland.  We have had our entire public sector health dismantled and handed to private non-profits run by health corporations.

As you see below this business system mirrors the lack of oversight, the fraud and corruption as all US business sectors only now it is public health.  I want to emphasize that because Maryland has no media reporting or investigation in all of this it is safe to conclude that what is happening here is happening in Maryland only more than likely worse.  Remember, Maryland has a waver from Medicare in oversight and that compounds the abuse.  See why Maryland has reduced Medicare spending?

------PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM NAKED CAPITALISM

I want to emphasize that these problems have not been addressed....they are worse!

Publicize Home Care Problems, Critics Say / Complaints about health providers hard to dig out

Janet Wells, Chronicle Staff Writer Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, May 24, 2000



In the wake of revelations about problems at Kaiser Oakland's home health program, consumer advocates are decrying the failure of state and federal agencies to inform the public about serious deficiencies among home health care providers.

The state Department of Health Services performs scores of investigations each year that reveal numerous problems. Yet the agency has no mechanism or requirement for public disclosure of its findings.

Such is the case even when violations are serious enough to put patients in "immediate jeopardy," as the state recently found was occurring at Kaiser.

"The fact is we have these problems, and there's no venue for reporting them," said Celi Adams, founder of Home Care Companions, a San Francisco-based group that trains people to provide home care for seriously ill relatives and friends.

"Nobody has the responsibility to put it out there, and it absolutely would be helpful to publish once a year what the complaints were, or the 10 worst home health agencies in the state."

Daniel Zingale, the interim head of the state's new Department of Managed Care, which will oversee health maintenance organizations starting July 1, agrees. He plans to issue a report on managed care with "easily accessible" information about state violations.

"There's definitely a need for more and better information being made available to the public," said Zingale, whose department is scheduled to take over much of the health care oversight responsibility of the Department of Corporations.

"Shining a spotlight on the strength and failings of managed care plans may be the best tool we have to ensure the quality of care they deliver," he said.

In Kaiser's case, the state investigation revealed problems so serious that they contributed to the death of one elderly patient from malnutrition, septic shock and deeply infected bed sores. Kaiser was given 23 days to fix the worst problems; it is now in compliance.

Although state reports on home health care providers are public record, it takes determination to dig one out.


The state performed almost 100 full surveys of the 944 home care providers last year, in addition to documenting investigations into 400 complaints.

A consumer seeking information about a particular home health agency must first determine which of the 13 state licensing and certification districts investigated it and then go to the district office in person to request the documentation.

But before the survey or complaint investigation is public record, the home health agency has up to several months to file a plan of correction and implement improvements.

After a brief follow-up visit by state evaluators to verify that changes are in place, the home health agency is left to monitor its own progress.

"It's all handled internally," Adams noted. "The public is not informed, and then it's a done deal. As a consumer, I want to know what's going on."


The idea is not to punish home health agencies, said Department of Health Services spokeswoman Lea Brooks. "You try to do everything you can to get the operator to comply."

Home health agencies have been sorely squeezed in recent years, facing severe staffing shortages, increased regulatory requirements and, since 1997, a 45 percent cut in reimbursement from Medicare, which pays for almost 80 percent of home health visits in California, according to state records.

Almost 300 agencies in California have closed in the last three years, mostly due to the deep cuts in Medicare reimbursement, said Connie Little, senior vice president of the California Association for Health Services at Home, an industry group representing 500 agencies.

Little pointed out that consumers have access to information on home health agencies from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, whose Web site is www.jcaho.org. The Illinois-based group has accredited 6,000 home health agencies nationwide, but participation in the accreditation survey process is voluntary and does not have the same focus -- or impact -- as a regulatory agency survey.

Little questioned whether consumers would benefit from public disclosure requirements in the home heath care industry. "If you're going for a regulatory fix, you get more regulations," she said. "I don't know if it increases the quality of care."


_____________________________________________
Below you see a good description of what conditions have to be met before you can qualify for home health care.  Time and again I hear from people who need the service desperately they cannot qualify for Medicare help and the cost is prohibitive.  So, if the only option for seniors needing a support system to age into is home health and they have written the laws so that getting that help is not easily available what happens to seniors?

They fall prey to the worst of private companies that act as the 'safety net' that once were public run institutions.  Mind you, state run senior care has always been the pits......but being a public institutions there was the ability to hold the institution accountable for public interest.  In this reform, people will be tracked into these private care facilities given no oversight and transparency and making it hard for families to get justice for bad care.

THIS IS WHAT NAKED CAPITALISM AND HEALTH CARE LOOK LIKE AND IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY!



When the Medicare home health benefit pays for home health care

Section IV.g. Home Health Care Benefit (Part A and B)Question 1 of 10 (use "Last" or "Next" buttons to see more) Return to referring page

Medicare will help pay for your home care if all four of the following are true:

1. You are considered homebound. Medicare considers you homebound if you meet the following criteria:  

  • You need the help of another person or special equipment (walker, wheelchair, crutches, etc.) to leave your home or your doctor believes that leaving your home would be harmful to your health; and
  • It is difficult for you to leave your home and you typically cannot do so.
2. You need skilled care. This includes skilled nursing care on an intermittent basis. Intermittent means you need care little as once every 60 days to as much as once a day for three weeks (this period can be longer if you need more care but your need for more care must be predictable and finite). This can also mean you need skilled therapy services. Skilled therapy services can be physical, speech or occupational therapy;*

3. Your doctor signs a home health certification stating that you qualify for Medicare home care because you are homebound and need intermittent skilled care. The certification must also say that a plan of care has been made for you, and that a doctor regularly reviews it. Usually, the certification and plan of care are combined in one form that is signed by your doctor and submitted to Medicare. 

  • As part of the certification, doctors must also confirm that they (or certain other providers, such as nurse practitioners) have had a face-to-face meeting with you related to the main reason you need home care within 90 days of starting to receive home health care or within 30 days after you have already started receiving home health care. Your doctor must specifically state that the face-to-face meeting confirmed that you are homebound and qualify for intermittent skilled care.
  • The face-to-face encounter can also be done through telehealth. In certain areas, Medicare will cover examinations done for you in specific places (doctors offices, hospitals, health clinics, skilled nursing facilities) through the use of telecommunications (such as video conferencing). 
4. You receive your care from a Medicare-certified home health agency (HHA).

*If you only need occupational therapy, you will not qualify for the Medicare home health benefit. However, if you qualify for Medicare coverage of home health care on another basis, you can also get occupational therapy. Even when your other needs for Medicare home health end, you should still be able to get occupational therapy under the Medicare home health benefit if you continue to need it.

If you have questions about billing issues for home health care you should contact 800-MEDICARE.

____________________________________________
A GLOBAL FRANCHISE CARING FOR OUR SENIORS.....HOW SPECIAL!!!!  Carlyle hedge fund has Baltimore's ManorCare!

A global leader in non-medical in-home senior care, the Home Instead Senior Care Network® has more than 900 international franchise businesses in operation, with key Home Instead Master Franchise markets still available worldwide.

Instead of worry, there's Home Instead®

The 85-and-older population is expected to more than triple between 2008 and 2050 in the United States alone. This staggering statistic not only proves the growing need for elderly home care, but also the fact that thousands of families are facing the same critical decision as you. You are absolutely not alone.

Since 1994, the Home Instead Senior Care® franchise network has been devoted to providing the highest-quality senior home care. Compassionate Home Instead CAREGiversSM are an invaluable resource in helping families eliminate worry, reduce stress and reestablish personal freedom. From Alzheimer's and dementia support to respite care and companionship, our more than 900 locally owned and operated offices are ready to help you through this difficult time.


Below you see a review written by a former employee.  Not surprising he recommends using smaller, local care as there is no consumer interest in this global corporate home health chain.  Sound familiar?  If you think this is bad for a cell phone business wait until it becomes life and death!

THAT'S THE WAY NEO-LIBERALS ROLL!!!

Exploiting health care workers and giving no attention to consumer communications----

Consumer Affairs
Consumer Complaints & Reviews


sally of St Paul, MN on Dec. 31, 2013

Satisfaction Rating1/5I worked at H. I. and also at another agency (where I am very happy). Home Instead doesn't pay well, but I really enjoyed my clients and have a much larger appreciation for seniors after working for them...I have reservations about them:

First, Home Instead doesn't have any nurses on staff just a million managers and supervisors who I have NEVER met who are constantly calling and emailing me. It's run very business-like not AT ALL personal. They are very micro managerial which is why I've wanted to leave and why I already have another job. They are over, over, overstaffed by people to over yet under manage the caregivers. When there is a problem, there is NO ONE to help- the "on call supervisor" is a joke- has never ever met the clients and is paid to basically answer the phone (I'm sure she calls in her hours on time which is probably why she's still there) but if you make a mistake 5 people you've never met to pound on you and tell you what you should have done...very corporate, over managed and under effective. Never met the owner.

The other company however, I have met the owner, nurses and the few staff. They are effective and staff manage themselves and know who to contact and know things will be handled promptly and effectively. The nurses actually are familiar with the clients, their meds, home, etc and are a phone call away. The small staff actually work TOGETHER cooperatively as an actual CARE TEAM (medical model) instead of destructively at each other (corporate model). I'd recommend a small independently run non-chain agency over an indifferent corporate business. As a CNA, almost-nurse and caregiver I feel for better care for your family go with a small, independent medically minded agency. It's better for both the client and caregiver. I also think that clients' family want a caregiver that is treated well.

__________________________________________
One thing you see throughout the Affordable Care Act is that there will be nurses and/or nurse practitioner involved in these health businesses taking over public health....including home health care.  As the commenter above pointed out in his review of one global corporation covering senior home health.....THERE WAS NOT A NURSE IN SIGHT.  HE HAD NO MEDICAL SUPERVISOR WITH WHOM TO TALK AND I HEAR THIS IN ALL CASES OF THESE HEALTH BUSINESSES.

You can see the same with education reform by privatization ------school boards filled with business people with no education background.  IT IS DELIBERATE AND IT WILL BREAK DOWN ALL PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS AND ALL STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO PROVIDE QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY.......which is the point of the ACA.....complete deregulation of the health care industry!


BELOW IS A REALLY, REALLY LONG REAL ACADEMIC STUDY THAT ADDRESSES THE NEED FOR NURSES IN SENIOR CARE CENTERS.  IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT TAKING THESE NURSES OUT....ESPECIALLY COMPLETELY WILL BE HARMFUL.


Health Serv Res. 2004 April; 39(2): 225–250. doi:  10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00225.xPMCID: PMC1361005

Relationship of Nursing Home Staffing to Quality of Care

John F Schnelle, Sandra F Simmons, Charlene Harrington, Mary Cadogan, Emily Garcia, and Barbara M Bates-Jensen

To compare nursing homes (NHs) that report different staffing statistics on quality of care.

Data SourcesStaffing information generated by California NHs on state cost reports and during onsite interviews. Data independently collected by research staff describing quality of care related to 27 care processes.

Study DesignTwo groups of NHs (n=21) that reported significantly different and stable staffing data from all data sources were compared on quality of care measures.

Data CollectionDirect observation, resident and staff interview, and chart abstraction methods.

Principal FindingsStaff in the highest staffed homes (n=6), according to state cost reports, reported significantly lower resident care loads during onsite interviews across day and evening shifts (7.6 residents per nurse aide [NA]) compared to the remaining homes that reported between 9 to 10 residents per NA (n=15). The highest-staffed homes performed significantly better on 13 of 16 care processes implemented by NAs compared to lower-staffed homes.

ConclusionThe highest-staffed NHs reported significantly lower resident care loads on all staffing reports and provided better care than all other homes.

Keywords: Staffing, quality of careNursing home (NH) staffing resources necessary to provide care consistent with regulatory guidelines are the subject of national debate due to emerging evidence that existing staffing resources may not be adequate (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000b). One recent study for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that 4.1 mean total (nursing aides [NAs] plus licensed nurses) direct care hours per resident per day (hprd) and 1.3 licensed nurse hprd (.75 for registered nurses [RNs] and .55 for licensed vocational nurses [LVNs]) were the minimum staffing levels associated with a lower probability of poor resident outcomes, such as weight loss and pressure ulcers (Kramer and Fish 2001). This study is supported by other correlational data documenting a relationship between staffing (particularly RNs) and a variety of outcomes, including: lower death rates, higher rates of discharges to home, improved functional outcomes, fewer pressure ulcers, fewer urinary tract infections, lower urinary catheter use, and less antibiotic use (Linn, Gurel, and Linn 1977; Nyman 1988; Munroe 1990; Cherry 1991; Spector and Takada 1991; Aaronson, Zinn, and Rosko 1994; Bliesmer et al. 1998; Harrington et al. 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000b). Few studies have specifically examined the relationship between staffing and the implementation of daily care processes, but inadequate staffing has been associated with inadequate feeding assistance during meals, poor skin care, lower activity participation, and less toileting assistance (Spector and Takada 1991; Kayser-Jones 1996, 1997; Kayser-Jones and Schell 1997). The results of these correlational studies led two Institute of Medicine committees to recommend higher nurse staffing in nursing facilities, including 24-hour registered nursing care (Wunderlich, Sloan, and Davis 1996; Wunderlich and Kohler 2001;). An expert panel recommended even higher minimum staffing levels (4.55 hprd including 1.85 licensed nurse hprd) (Harrington et al. 2000). However, neither the correlational studies nor the CMS study directly measured specific care processes that may be better implemented in higher staffed homes and that could explain the effects on resident outcomes.

A second study conducted for CMS focused on this care process implementation issue (Schnelle, Simmons, and Cretin 2001). This study used staff time estimates in computerized simulations to predict the nursing assistant (NA) staffing ratios necessary to provide care recommended in regulatory guidelines. Care processes related to incontinence care, feeding assistance, exercise, and activities of daily living (ADL) independence enhancement (e.g., dressing), all of which are typically implemented by NAs, were included in the simulation. The results of this study showed that 2.8 to 3.2 NA hprd, depending on the acuity level of the NH population, were necessary to consistently provide all of these daily care processes. The NA staffing levels reported in this process-focused study are similar to those recommended by one expert consensus panel who also attempted to identify the labor requirements to implement key care processes, such as feeding assistance (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000). Unfortunately, 92 percent of the nation's NHs report staffing levels below the staffing minimums identified by the expert panel as well as the two recent CMS studies, and more than 50 percent of NHs would have to double current staffing levels to meet these minimums (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000a).

The fact that so many NHs report staffing levels below this minimum has led to recent efforts to develop staffing indicators so that long-term care consumers can make informed judgements about the adequacy of NH staffing within a facility. However, neither the simulated staffing predictions nor the expert consensus recommendations have been subjected to a field test evaluation. Based on the simulation predictions, one would hypothesize that higher staffed NHs would be better able to provide labor-intense daily care activities, such as feeding assistance, toileting assistance, repositioning, and exercise care. More specifically, it would be predicted that homes that report 2.8 to 3.2 NA hprd would perform significantly better than all other homes in the implementation of these daily care processes. The purpose of this study was to address this issue by describing the relationship between staffing levels in 21 NHs and directly measured processes of care that are both labor intense and recommended in NH regulatory guidelines. The primary question addressed in this study was: Is there a relationship between staffing, as separately reported by NH administrators and NAs, and the implementation of daily care processes that reflect quality of care?

Go to:MethodsSubjects and SettingRecruitment of homes was accomplished in two phases (Figure 1). In phase one, 175 homes were identified in the southern California region as being in the upper 75th percentile or lower 25th percentile according to staffing data reported by NH administrators in 1999 to the State of California (California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 2002). Mean total direct hprd was used to determine each home's percentile rank. Thirty homes agreed to participate (15 in each of the extreme quartiles). However, only 17 of the 30 homes remained in the same quartile according to state staffing data reported in the year 2000 (9 lower quartile; 8 upper quartile). In addition, six of the eight homes in the upper quartile in both years (stable homes) reported a decrease in staffing in 2000 (4.0 hours to 3.4 hours) with all six homes clustered at 3.4 direct care hprd. The two remaining homes in the upper quartile were more stable and reported 3.7 and 5.1 direct care hprd in 2000. Furthermore, NAs in these two higher staffed homes also reported significantly lower resident care loads on interview in the year 2001 when compared to homes in the remaining upper quartile, as will be reported later. Thus, homes were initially divided into the following three categories for analytical comparisons: nine homes that reported an average of 2.7 hprd in both 1999 and 2000 (Group 1: lower quartile homes), six homes that reported 3.4 hprd in both 1999 and 2000 (Group 2: upper quartile homes), and two homes that reported an average of 4.9 hprd in both 1999 and 2000 (Group 3: upper-decile homes).

Figure 1Flow of Participants through TrialBecause of the potential importance of the upper-decile homes, Phase 2 was initiated to recruit additional homes in the 91st to 100th percentile (upper decile) following the completion of data analyses for Phase 1 homes. Research staff was blind to the staffing percentile ranking for each home during the data collection and analyses for Phase 1 but not in Phase 2 (see Figure 1). In Phase 2, 47 homes in the Southern California region were identified as being in the upper decile according to 2000 state staffing data. These homes also had small (<10 percent) Medicare populations because large Medicare populations can inflate staffing levels for the long-term care portion of the NH. Four homes were recruited that reported staffing levels above 3.8 total hprd in the year 2000 (upper decile) for a predominantly long-term care population.

Thus, a total of 21 homes were studied across the two phases. Residents who were long stay (not covered by Medicare) were eligible for participation, and resident recruitment occurred over two weeks within each home. The number of participants and consent rates are illustrated in Figure 1. Onsite data collection both to assess quality of care and to confirm state staffing reports with NH staff interviews occurred over three consecutive days and were conducted from June 2001 to September 2002. State cost report staffing data were not available for the year 2001.

Staff Interviews: Accuracy of State Staffing Reports To check the accuracy of year 2000 staffing statistics reported by NH administrators to the state and also to update these statistics, research staff conducted interviews with 118 NAs who worked on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shifts during onsite data collection in 2001–2002. The NAs were asked “How many residents are you responsible for today?” and “Are you working ‘short’?” Administrators were also asked to report the number of NAs, LVNs, and RNs that were usually scheduled during the time period that onsite data collection was being completed. These data were converted into staffing hours per resident day by assuming that a full-time staff member worked 7.5 hours and dividing staffing hours by the number of occupied beds in the facility. Even though these staffing data were not collected according to the same specific definitions used for the state reporting system, it does represent a more current staffing estimate. Independent checks of time cards to validate staffing statistics were not possible because it would have required consent from each NH staff member in the facility. The onsite staffing reports were not regarded as more or less accurate than the state staffing reports, only more timely. The agreement between the different staffing data sources was considered an important estimate of data accuracy.

Measurement DomainsSixteen care processes typically implemented by NAs were measured by research staff using standardized direct observation and resident interview protocols during three consecutive 12-hour weekdays in each NH. The care process measures relevant to NA job performance can be divided into four major domains: out of bed/social engagement; feeding assistance; incontinence care; exercise and repositioning. Each of these NA care process measures can be defended as representing “good practice” and should be sensitive to differential NA staffing between homes because most of these care processes are also labor intense to implement.

All participants were observed with at least one of three different observational protocols (described below), but subgroups of participants were selected for interview. Participants with an MDS recall score of two or greater were asked questions about the occurrence of specific care processes (e.g., How often do you receive walking or toileting assistance?) because a recent study showed that residents who meet this interview selection criterion are able to accurately describe the care they receive (Simmons and Schnelle 2001). However, all participants were asked more general questions about the quality of assistance (e.g., Do you have to wait too long?) because there is evidence that residents who are capable of completing an interview can provide stable responses to these types of questions. Eleven care process measures related primarily to licensed nurse staff performance (e.g., pressure ulcer risk assessment) were evaluated based primarily on medical record review, with the exception of two resident interview measures, using standardized protocols.

Out of Bed and Engagement: Observations To assess participants' time spent in bed and social engagement during the day research staff observed participants for one 12-hour day (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). The time-sampling protocol involved locating each participant every hour between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and observing the resident for up to one minute. Engagement was defined as interaction with either a staff member, a resident, or another person; an organized group activity; or with an object (e.g., television, reading, sewing). These two measures (out-of-bed time and engagement) are related to staffing levels, because assisting residents out of bed is labor intense since it occurs during the morning or evening periods when there are numerous competing activities (e.g., breakfast) and the resident must be dressed or groomed at the same time. There is evidence that NH residents spend excessive times in bed (Schnelle et al. 1998). It was also hypothesized that staff in high-staffed homes would have more time either to interact with or encourage residents to participate in activities during the day. Social interaction with and prompting residents to participate in activities are not necessarily labor intensive but are optional care activities that may not occur if staff are rushed to provide more mandatory physical care (e.g., providing feeding assistance to residents).

Feeding Assistance: Observation and Interview Measures Seven measures related to the quality of feeding assistance care were measured using direct, continuous (not time-sampled) observations during meals in which one staff member observed six to eight participants. All feeding assistance measures were assessed regardless of dining location (dining room versus room), with the exception of social interaction and verbal prompting during meals. The percent of social interaction or verbal prompts during meals was designed to assess the quality of feeding assistance, and interaction was counted if at least one minute of social interaction or verbal prompting occurred between the resident and the NH staff. Social interaction during meals has been related to increased food intake, and even the most cognitively impaired resident should receive some verbal prompts and social interaction during meals as opposed to physical assistance rendered in silence. The development, rationale, and scoring rules for all feeding assistance care process measures have been described elsewhere (Simmons et al. 2002). Brief descriptions of a few measures are provided here. Two measures were related to determining if a resident who is at risk for weight loss due to either low oral food and fluid intake or physical dependency on staff for eating, received at least a minimal amount of staff assistance during meals. Participants were considered to “pass” the first care process measure if they ate less than 50 percent of their meal but still received more than one minute of staff assistance. The logic of this indicator is that residents with intake below 50 percent are at risk for weight loss, and staff should try to provide assistance to these residents. If a resident ate less than 50 percent and received less than one minute of staff attention, it is not possible to separate poor assistance from other explanations for the poor eating. Participants were considered to pass the second care process measure if they were rated as physically dependent on the MDS and received more than five minutes of assistance. A measure relating to the accuracy of NH staff documentation of residents' oral food and fluid intake during meals and, thus, the ability of staff to identify residents with potentially problematic intake was also assessed. A participant passed this care process measure if he or she was observed by research staff to eat less than 50 percent of their meal and NH staff recorded less than 60 percent. Low intake is associated with weight loss and accurately identifying this problem is a logical prerequisite for prevention. Participants who had an MDS recall score of two or greater were also asked one interview question related to the NH food service, “If you don't like the food served at a particular meal, can you get something else?”

It was hypothesized that feeding assistance would be significantly associated with staffing levels because it is labor intense to provide this daily care process for all residents who need it. Both the simulation predictions conducted for the CMS study and one expert consensus panel predicted that a NA staffing ratio of two to five residents per NA is necessary to provide adequate feeding assistance care (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000; Schnelle, Simmons, and Cretin 2001).

Incontinence Care: Interview Measures Incontinent participants, according to the most recent MDS assessment, with MDS recall scores of two or greater were asked how often they received toileting assistance, and all incontinent residents who responded to the interview questions were asked the more general question, “Do you have to wait too long for assistance?”

Exercise and Repositioning: Observation and Interview Measures Observational data relevant to participants' physical movements were obtained from a wireless monitor worn on the thigh that measures horizontal and vertical orientation every four seconds. Preliminary research showed that repositioning movements in bed were characterized by the monitor recording a minimum 40° move in the horizontal position followed by maintenance of at least a 20° change in the horizontal position and at least two 40° vertical changes when repositioning occurred in a chair. The monitor also enabled the detection of physical activities that involved sustained participant movement for at least six minutes and, thus, could possibly reflect an episode of exercise care. Because exercise (e.g., walking assistance) could not be discriminated from care processes that involved movement for other reasons (e.g., incontinence care), all participant movements that were sustained for at least six minutes were characterized as “activity episodes” possibly related to exercise. The thigh monitor was used because preliminary data indicated that any observational schedule feasible for a human observer to implement with more than three residents would underestimate the frequency of care episodes, such as walking and repositioning, that occur less than every two hours and are relatively brief in duration.

Two movement measures were calculated from thigh monitor data. First, the number of repositioning episodes per hour was calculated for participants who were noted in the medical record as being on a two-hour repositioning program and who could not reposition themselves independently according to a performance test conducted by research staff. In this test, participants who were unable to move from side to side unless they received physical assistance were considered dependent on staff for repositioning. Next, the number of activity episodes per hour was calculated for each of the above participants to determine whether there were differences between high- and low-staffed homes in the provision of care processes that could be interpreted as exercise.

Finally, all participants with MDS recall scores of two or greater and who were in need of walking assistance were asked how many walking assists they received per day. The participants' need for walking assistance was determined during a performance test conducted by research staff in which participants were asked to stand and walk and provided graduated levels of assistance to do so. Participants who were unable to stand and bear weight, even if provided full physical assistance by research staff, were excluded from this analysis. It was hypothesized that higher-staffed homes would be more likely to consistently provide exercise, repositioning, and walking assistance to participants because all of these care processes are labor intensive.

Medical Record Review: Licensed Nurse Measures Descriptive information for all participants was collected from the medical record and the most recent MDS or the annual assessment for some items. A trained physician or geriatric nurse practitioner conducted medical record reviews to assess care processes related to licensed nurse activities. It was hypothesized that licensed nurses in homes with higher staffing would perform better at assessment of conditions typically managed by nurses, as opposed to primary care providers, than licensed nurses in homes with lower staffing.

Eight of the licensed nurse care process measures used in this study are derived from the RAND Assessing the Care of Vulnerable Elderly (ACOVE) project. The quality indicators in the ACOVE project were operationalized with specific scoring rules and data sources identified for rating each indicator. The methodology used to develop the ACOVE indicators and the evidence that supports their validity has been reported elsewhere (Wenger and Shekelle 2001; Shekelle et al. 2001; Saliba and Schnelle 2002). Eight care processes from the set of ACOVE quality indicators most relevant to licensed nurse performance were identified by a geriatric nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist who covered three care areas: pressure ulcer, incontinence assessment, and pain. In addition, three care processes that were not specific ACOVE indicators were identified that evaluated how well nurses either assessed pain or provided medications to residents with chronic pain.

The ACOVE indicators are relatively self-explanatory even though it should be noted that liberal scoring rules were used to determine if a participant's medical record documentation met the pass criteria for each indicator. For example, in regard to incontinence Indicator 5, a medical record was considered to have fulfilled the intent of this indicator if documentation was provided for just two of the three conditions (e.g., skin health, genital system examination, fecal impaction assessment). The measures used to assess how well nurses were detecting and treating pain requires more explanation.

Three interview measures were used to evaluate licensed nurse performance relevant to pain. Research staff attempted to interview all participants with MDS recall scores of two or above with a set of six questions about pain. Two questions were related to communication between the licensed nurse and the resident regarding pain, “Do you tell the nurse about your pain?” and “Does the nurse ask you about pain?” We report data on the latter question and hypothesized that licensed nurses in higher-staffed homes would ask participants about pain more frequently than nurses in lower-staffed homes. Directly taking a proactive approach and asking residents about pain was considered better care than the more passive approach of simply reacting when a resident spontaneously complains of pain.

The four remaining pain questions were used to identify participants with chronic pain symptoms. Participants were asked: “Do you have pain every day?”; “Does pain ever keep you from doing things you enjoy (like social activities, walking)?”; “Does pain ever keep you from sleeping at night?”; and “Do you have pain right now?” Participants were judged as endorsing chronic pain if they responded “yes” to the question, “Do you have pain everyday?” or if they responded “yes” to all three remaining pain questions. To assess how well licensed nurses were detecting pain we determined the percent of participants who were judged as having chronic pain according to research staff interview who also had licensed nurse documentation of pain on the most recent MDS assessment. We also assessed licensed nurse performance relevant to management of chronic pain. First, we identified a subgroup of participants who had chronic pain according to research staff interviews. Then we determined the percent of this subgroup of participants who were offered pain medication by the licensed nurse at least 50 percent of the days in the previous month. We believed that licensed nurses in higher staffed homes would both detect chronic pain symptoms and offer as needed pain medication more frequently than licensed nurses in lower staffed homes.

Reliability and Stability Interrater reliability for time in bed and engagement observational measures was statistically significant for both measures but high only for the in-bed measures (measures 1 and 2, Table 3; kappa values .65 and .29; p<.001). A subset of 272 participants was observed for a second day on these measures to evaluate stability. The Pearson correlation was .79 for in-bed and .47 for engagement (p<.05). Interrater reliability for all observational-based feeding assistance care process measures shown in Table 3 (measures 3 to 10) ranged from .92 to 1.0; n=55 to 199; p<.001. Mealtime observations were repeated on a second day for all participants and correlations between the two days were significant on all variables (range .22 to .75; p<.05) with social interaction and verbal prompting measures showing the lowest but still significant correlations. The low correlation for this social interaction variable was due to the relatively low frequency that this behavior was observed. Correlations for all the other nutritional measures were above .60. Correlation between a resident's reported having received toileting assistance on two separate days (measure 11, Table 3) was .62; p<.01. The interrater agreement for the interpretation of thigh monitor data necessary to calculate exercise care process measures (measures 13, 14, 15) produced kappa statistics of .61 for repositioning movements, .82 for activity episodes while in a chair, and .75 for activity episodes while in bed. The correlation of a participant's report of walking assistance (measure 16) between two days was calculated for 38 residents (day 1 number of assists reported versus day 2 number of assists reported; r=.35, p<.05).

Table 3Observation and Interview Measurement DomainsGo to:ResultsCharacteristics of Participants in Key Comparison GroupsTable 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants in each group of homes. There were significant differences between participants in all three groups (Table 1). In particular, participants in the upper-decile homes were significantly more likely to be female, older, private pay, and Caucasian when compared to participants in all the other homes; while participants in the lower quartile homes were significantly more likely to be minority and MediCal. In terms of participant acuity, participants in the lower quartile homes (Group 1) tended to be more independent for transfer and feeding assistance and had better cognitive functioning (MDS recall scores) when compared to participants in both the 75th to 90th percentile (Group 2) and upper-decile homes (Group 3). There was no difference on five MDS based acuity measures (recall, transfer and eating dependency, incontinence, pressure ulcer RAP triggered) when comparisons were made between residents in the highest-staffed homes (upper decile) and those in the two lower-staffed homes (combined Groups 1 and 2 versus Group 3).

Table 1Facility and Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Sample Nursing HomesTo address generalizability issues, efforts were made to determine if differences existed between 9 highest-staffed and 45 lower-staffed homes that declined participation in this project and the 6 highest-staffed and 15 lower-staffed homes that participated. The homes that declined participation and the homes that participated were compared on MDS-derived measures of prevalence of weight loss, physical restraint use, and residents' need for assistance with transfer, eating, and toileting characteristics, all of which are available from a new public reporting system in California (http://www.calnhs.org). In addition, data were available describing homes' profit status, total nursing staff hours, nursing staff turnover, total federal deficiencies cited for 2001–2002, and expenditures for direct resident care per resident day. The only difference between participating lower-staffed homes and nonparticipating lower-staffed homes was on the expenditures per resident per day ($59 versus $68, respectively; t=2.115, p=.04). The only difference between participating and nonparticipating highest-staffed homes was on for-profit status of the home (33 percent versus 100 percent, χ2=8.182, p=.004). These results should be cautiously interpreted but in general suggest that the homes participating in this project comprise a relatively typical sample.

Sample Characteristics: Staffing DataTable 2 illustrates the staffing data for the three groups of NHs. The first eight rows alternatively illustrate state staffing statistics for the year 2000 and onsite staffing data reported by administrators. There were large differences between high-decile homes and all remaining homes on all staffing variables except RN hours according to 2000 state staffing data. These differences are most dramatic for total staffing hours and aide staffing hours. In regard to total hours, high decile homes reported an average of 4.88 hours compared to lower quartile and 75th to 90th percentile homes that reported 2.7 and 3.4 hrpd, respectively. There were also significant but less dramatic differences between homes in the lower quartile and the 75th to 90th percentile on most staffing variables. However, interview data collected in 2001–2002 while the research team was onsite suggested that there were no longer differences between lower quartile homes and those in the 75th to 90th percentile on any staffing variable. Lower-quartile home administrators reported an increase in total staffing from 2.7 in 2000 to 3.2 in 2001–2002 and the 75th to 90th percentile homes reported a staffing decrease from 3.4 to 3.0. Administrator reports of staffing and NA reports of workload continued to show a significant difference for Group 3 (upper decile) homes compared to the remaining homes. Administrators reported a total of 4.5 hrpd in 2001–2002 in the upper-decile homes. Both administrators and NAs in the upper-decile homes reported a ratio of residents to NAs on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shifts combined that were very close (7.1 to 7.6 residents to NAs, respectively). These reports were significantly different from the NA workload reports in other homes (e.g., nine to 10 residents per aide, see Table 2, rows 9, 10). These data suggest that there are two distinct groups of homes based on staffing statistics. The difference in staffing between Group 1 and Group 2 homes is not only small and unstable, but also well below those minimums thought to indicate better care according to both expert panels and recent CMS studies. Alternatively, the homes in the upper decile were not only dramatically higher on staffing measures when compared to all other homes but also staffed at those levels thought to be necessary to provide good care (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000; Schnelle, Simmons, Cretin 2001; Kramer and Fish 2001). For these reasons, the primary comparisons on all care process measures were conducted between homes in the upper decile (Group 3) and the remaining sample (Groups 1+2 combined).

Table 2Staffing Characteristics of Sample Nursing HomesNA Care Process Measures: Do Homes That Report the Highest NA Staffing (Group 3 Upper Decile) Provide Different Care Than the Remainder of the Homes (Groups 1 and 2 Combined)Table 3 illustrates that upper-decile homes (Group 3) were significantly different in the same direction on 13 of 16 different care process measures; and, in eight cases significance levels exceeded p<.001. The probability that 13 out of 16 comparisons would be significant at the .05 level by chance is less than .00001. The pattern of significant differences was consistent across all care areas listed in Table 1, but the care process differences were most compelling for feeding assistance and least compelling for exercise and repositioning. In general, participants in the upper-decile homes spent more time out of bed during the day; were engaged more frequently; received better feeding and toileting assistance; were repositioned more frequently; and showed more physical movement patterns during the day that could reflect exercise. However, even participants in these highest-staffed facilities did not receive repositioning at the rate of once every two hours during the day or night and only received potential exercise activities at the rate of approximately one episode every four hours. In addition, there were no differences between the groups of homes in repositioning frequency at night; walking assistance frequency during the day as reported by the participants; or the amount of social interaction observed between residents and staff during meals.

Social interaction during meals could only be measured in the dining room, and participants in the upper-decile homes were observed significantly more often in the dining room than those in the remaining homes. If one assumes that there are very low or zero levels of social interaction between residents and staff if residents eat in their rooms, which is a reasonable assumption, then there would be significant overall differences in the amount of social interaction that participants in upper-decile homes received during meals as compared to participants in all remaining homes.

There were no differences on five MDS-based acuity measures that could explain why more residents ate in their rooms more often in the lower-staffed homes (Groups 1 and 2 combined versus those in the highest-staffed NHs—see Table 1). The significant higher age of residents in the highest-staffed home would seem predictive of these residents spending more time in bed as opposed to less time as was observed. However, none of the demographic characteristics including age were correlated with in-bed or feeding assistance measures across all homes. A multiple regression analysis using staffing as a categorical variable (upper decile versus all others) and MDS acuity scores that were correlated with in-bed time (transfer and feeding assistance, recall scores, and prevalence of UI and pressure ulcer RAP triggered) revealed that staffing remained the only significant predictor of in-bed time (standardized beta=−.28, standard error=8.8, p<.003).

Licensed Nurse Performance MeasuresTable 4 presents the licensed nurse comparisons between the three groups of homes. Unlike the NA care process comparisons, there were no licensed nurse performance measures that favored the upper-decile homes. In fact, licensed nurses in the lower-staffed homes performed better on 2 of the 11 indicators when compared to the upper-decile homes (Group 3). This difference was primarily due to Group 1 homes' nurses scoring significantly better on two pressure ulcer indicators. In addition to the low pass rates for higher-staffed homes on licensed nurse measures, there was also relatively poor performance on some indicators across all homes. Specifically, no group of homes performed well on the indicators assessing licensed nurse management of chronic pain by offering “as needed” pain medication on at least 50 percent of the days in the prior month to those residents with chronic pain symptoms. Less than 10 percent of participants who had chronic pain symptoms and who also had a physician's order for pain medication “as needed” were offered the pain medication on at least 50 percent of the days in the prior month across all homes. Furthermore, licensed nurses failed to identify many residents with chronic pain because less than 50 percent of participants who had chronic pain also had documentation of pain on their most recent MDS assessment. The kappa statistic agreement for residents with chronic pain on two different interviews was .65 (p<.01), indicating high stability. Finally, licensed nurses in all homes also performed poorly on several of the incontinence indicators. Most notably, no incontinent participants had documentation of a three-to-five day toileting assistance trial, which is the most valid method of determining if a resident should receive a scheduled toileting program.

Table 4Measures of Licensed Nurse Care ProcessesGo to:DiscussionNursing home self-reported staffing statistics do reflect differences in quality between homes that report the highest staffing level (upper decile) and all remaining homes. There were few differences between homes that report staffing levels below the 90th percentile and the staffing levels in these homes were unstable across the different staffing measures. There appears to be a two-tiered staffing system with only the homes reporting the highest level of staffing showing both stability and significantly better care on most measures.

The most dramatic differences between the homes were reported for NA hours and the most dramatic quality improvement occurred for homes that reported a total staffing hrpd average from 4.8 (state data) to 4.5 (onsite interview data). There was also a significant improvement in these upper-decile homes for multiple care processes delivered by NAs even though residents in the upper-decile homes needed as much care according to multiple functional measures as residents in the lower-staffed homes.

There were smaller differences between homes in reported licensed nurse hours and particularly RN hours and there were also fewer differences between homes on licensed nurse performance measures. The differences that did exist favored the lower-staffed homes for two pressure ulcer assessment indicators derived from medical record data. In contrast, observation and resident interview measures related to pressure ulcer care actually received by residents (e.g., toileting assistance, repositioning care) favored the upper-decile homes. This finding highlights an important discrepancy between quality conclusions about NH care process implementation derived from different data sources (medical record versus observation and resident interview).

Despite this discrepancy, it is still surprising that the medical record documentation provided by licensed nurses in higher-staffed facilities was not better since other studies have reported a relationship between licensed nurses' hours and some quality measures (Kramer and Fish 2001). There are two potential explanations for this finding. First, it is possible that none of the homes in this study had adequate licensed nurses, particularly RNs, to improve care quality. Furthermore, RN hours failed to reach the minimum level recommended by a recent CMS study (.75 hours) in all homes, and RN hours were much less in all homes than that recommended by an expert panel (1.15 hours) (Harrington, Kovner et al. 2000). Second, licensed nurses in all facilities simply may be unaware of some care processes that define good quality (e.g., no homes documented a trial of toileting assistance for incontinent residents and all homes did poorly on all pain-related measures). This possibility reinforces arguments that licensed nurses who practice in NHs should receive more specialized training focused on the NH population.

It is also important to note that some care processes were poorly implemented in even the highest-staffed facilities, despite the fact that these facilities had sufficient numbers of NAs to potentially provide 100 percent of care to all residents. One plausible explanation for this finding is that all homes lacked management mechanisms necessary to assure that care was provided on a daily basis, in particular, for care processes that are difficult to measure and manage. For example, the fewest differences occurred between homes on care processes related to repositioning and walking exercise, both of which are difficult to measure when compared to more visible types of care (e.g., resident out of bed). In addition, even though the highest-staffed facilities provided better feeding assistance than other homes, there were still problems that could be traced to measurement issues. For example, even staff in the highest-staffed facilities did not accurately record that 48 percent of the residents were eating less than 50 percent of the food offered and that 54 percent of these low-intake residents were provided less than one minute of feeding assistance during meals. Both of these problems in higher-staffed homes could reflect the absence of a quality assessment technology to accurately measure and monitor these care processes.

We should also note that the differences in the care for the highest-staffing homes (Group 3, upper decile) and all lower-staffed homes were significantly greater than the differences in quality measured for homes that differed on MDS clinical quality indicators. This finding, as reported in other studies, suggests that staffing data may be the best information to give consumers (Bates-Jensen et al. 2003; Simmons et al. 2003; Schnelle, Cadogan et al. 2003; Cadogan et al. 2003; Schnelle et al. 2004).

The conclusions are limited to the relatively small regional sample and our inability to check staffing accuracy with time card records even though time card accuracy checks can also be problematic (Hurd, White, and Feuerberg 2001). Fortunately, the reports by aides of their workloads appears to be a measure that is both associated with other workload reports and discriminative of care quality. This fact suggests that consumers might want to monitor the adequacy of staffing in NHs by asking aides how many people they are working with.

It is also possible that NH characteristics correlated with staffing may have mediated some of the effects reported in this study. For example, higher wages and benefits and lower staff turnover have been linked to better quality and we did not measure these variables. Future studies should expand the number of NH homes (particularly high-staffed homes) and variables studied in an effort to more comprehensively delineate the effects of staffing on quality. The low number of high-staffed homes in this study prevented statistical controls for potentially important facility variables that differentiated these homes, such as size and proportion of Medicaid residents. In addition, we did not measure all resident acuity variables that may have explained why residents in low-staffed homes spent so much time in bed. Direct measures of a resident's sickness severity are particularly important for this purpose.

The standardized measurement technology described in this paper represents a major strength of this study. The measurement protocols are clearly defined, can be replicated, and meet scientific measurement criteria related to reliability and stability. Even though one can argue about the importance of some of the measures for assessing quality, the specificity of the measures allows for this argument to be evidence-based.

Despite the limitations of this study, an excellent case can be made that the highest-staffed homes provided better care. Furthermore, NA staffing levels reported by only the highest-staffed homes exceeded those levels that were identified in two recent CMS reports as associated with higher care quality. This finding provides some verification that NA staffing above 2.8 hours per resident per day is associated with better quality.

Go to:FootnotesSupported by a grant from the California HealthCare Foundation. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and may not reflect those of the Foundation. The California HealthCare Foundation, based in Oakland, California, is a nonprofit philanthropic organization whose mission is to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities, and to promote fundamental improvements in the health status of the people of California. This research was also supported by grant AG10415 from the National Institute on Aging, UCLA Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.






0 Comments

January 07th, 2014

1/7/2014

0 Comments

 
DID YOU KNOW THAT MARYLAND IS ONE OF THE STATES NOT COVERING AUTISM AND THAT IS THE MOST DIAGNOSED NEUROLOGICAL  DISEASES TODAY BECAUSE OF DAMAGES FROM CHEMICAL EXPOSURES FOR ONE!  THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!

IN MARYLAND, WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT JOHNS HOPKINS PUBLIC HEALTH? YOU KNOW IT RUNS ALL OF BALTIMORE AND MUCH OF MARYLAND PUBLIC HEALTH----AND IT IS A CORPORATION FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE FAILURE OF ACA AS A HEALTH REFORM IS NOT BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS, IT IS BECAUSE OF NEO-LIBERALS.  IT IS A REPUBLICAN PLAN SIMPLY MEANT TO DISMANTLE PUBLIC HEALTH AND MAXIMIZE PROFIT.  SO, DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN BECAUSE YOU ARE MAD AT NEO-LIBERALS.....RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!

YOUR POLITICIAN KNEW THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT!



Michael Riseup Stowell
I figured Obamacare was designed as a bailout for the insurance industry, and so I expected it to be disappointing - this journalist explains how: "Poor young people with zero disposable income are being asked to pay monthly premiums of $150 and more, and they’re opting out, inevitably sinking Obamacare in the process.

Those young people who actually do buy Obamacare plans—to avoid the “mandate” fine— will be further enraged when they attempt to actually use their “insurance...


Everyone knows I've been shouting for four years that this would be the result and your political pundit, media, and national labor union/justice leaders knew it too!  Labor no doubt backed this to save union rights but there is a point at which saving the bathwater and throwing out the baby comes into play.  Union members feel betrayed and citizens see the unions as working against their interests. 

CITIZENS HAVE TO COME OUT AND SHOUT AS OUR UNIONS ARE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.  STRENGTHEN UNIONS BY FIGHTING FOR THE BENEFITS PROMISED!



YOU CANNOT WAIT TO SHOUT OUT AND DEMAND EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL AND DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN THAT DOES NOT SHOUT THIS!


The article below is harsh on supposed progressive people backing what people in the know knew was bad for Americans.  The process of reform was built on making labor and justice desperate and divided and that is what happened.  I went to a progressive symposium four years ago in Washington with all the leading 'progressive' voices and shouted at that packed symposium that this would be the result and there was silence. 
If your incumbent chose silence then


THE SILENCE IS DUPLICITY.

January 06, 2014

Single-Payer is the Only Real Option The Left After the Failure of Obamacare by SHAMUS

COOKE it’s satisfying to watch rats flee a sinking ship.  This is because onlookers knew the ship was doomed long ago, and swimming rats signify that the drawn-out tragedy is nearing an end.  A collective sense of relief is a natural response.

The rats who propped up the broken boat of Obamacare are a collection of liberal and labor groups who frittered away their group’s resources—and integrity— to sell a crappy product to the American people.

Those in the deepest denial went “all in” for Obamacare— such as some unions and groups like Moveon.org— while the more conniving groups and individuals—like Michael Moore— playacted “critical” of Obamacare, while nevertheless declaring it “progressive”, in effect adding crucial political support to a project that deserved none.

But of course Obamacare was always more barrier than progress: we’ve wasted the last several years planning, debating, and reconstructing the national health care system, all the while going in the wrong direction— into the pockets of the insurance mega corporations.    A couple progressive patches on the sails won’t keep her afloat.  It’s shipbuilding time.

It was painful to watch otherwise intelligent people lend support to something that’s such an obviously bad idea.  So it’s with immense relief that liberals like Michael Moore, labor groups, and others are finally distancing themselves from Obamacare’s Titanic failure.   Now these individuals and groups can stop living in denial and the rest of us can proceed towards a rational discussion about a real health care solution.

The inevitable failure of Obamacare is not due to a bad website, but deeper issues.   The hammering of the nails in the coffin has begun:  millions of young people are suddenly realizing that Obamacare does not offer affordable health care.  It’s a lie, and they aren’t buying it, literally.

The system depends on sufficient young people to opt in and purchase plans, in order to offset the costs of the older, higher-needs population.    Poor young people with zero disposable income are being asked to pay monthly premiums of $150 and more, and they’re opting out, inevitably sinking Obamacare in the process.

Those young people who actually do buy Obamacare plans—to avoid the “mandate” fine— will be further enraged when they attempt to actually use their “insurance”.   Many of the cheapest plans—the obvious choice for most young people— have $5,000 deductibles before the insurance will pay for anything.   For poor young people this is no insurance at all, but a form of extortion.

At the same time millions of union members are being punished under Obamacare: those with decent insurance plans will suffer the “Cadillac” tax, which will push up the cost of their healthcare plans, and employers are already demanding concessions from union members in the form of higher health care premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc.

Lower paid union workers will suffer as well.  Those who are part of the Taft Hartley insurance plans will be pressured to leave the plans and buy their own insurance, since they cannot keep their plans and get the subsidy that the lowest income workers get.   This has the potential to bust the whole Taft Hartley health care system that millions of union members benefit from, which is one of the reasons that labor leaders suddenly became outraged at Obamacare, after having wasted millions of union member’s dollars propping it up.

Ultimately, the American working class will collectively cheer Obamacare’s demise.   They just need labor and other lefties to cheer lead its destruction a little more fiercely.

Surprisingly, most of the rats are still clinging to Obama’s hopeless vessel, frantically bailing water.  Sure they’ve put on their life preservers and anxiously eyeing the lifeboats, but they’re also preaching about how to re-align the deckchairs.

For example, in his “critical” New York Times op-ed piece, Michael Moore called Obamacare “awful”, but also called it a “godsend”, singing his same tired tune.   Part of Moore’s solution for Obamacare—which was cheered on in the Daily Kos— is equally ludicrous, and follows his consistently flawed logic that Obamacare is worth saving, since its “progress” that we can build on.   Moore writes:

“Those who live in red [Republican dominated] states need the benefit of Medicaid expansion [a provision of Obamacare]…. In blue [Democrat dominated] states, let’s lobby for a public option on the insurance exchange — a health plan run by the state government, rather than a private insurer.”

This is Moore at his absolute worst.  He’s neck deep in the flooded hull of the U.S.S Obamacare and giving us advice on how to tread water.

Of course Moore doesn’t criticize the heart of Obamacare, the individual mandate, the most hated component.

Moore also relies on the trump card argument of the pro-Obamacare liberals: there are progressive aspects to the scheme—such as the expansion of Medicaid— and therefore the whole system is worth saving.

Of course it’s untrue that we need Obamacare to expand Medicaid.  In fact, the expansion of Medicaid acted more as a Trojan horse to introduce the pro-corporate heart of the system; a horse that Moore and other liberals nauseatingly continue to ride on.

But Moore’s sneakiest argument is his advice to blue states to  “…lobby for a public option on the insurance exchange…”

Again, Moore implies that it’s ok if we are “mandated” to buy health insurance, so long is there is a public option.  But that aside, the deeper scheme here is that Moore wants us to further waste our energy “reforming” Obamacare, rather than driving it to the bottom of the sea.

Moore surely knows that very few people are going to march in the streets demanding a public option at this point; he therefore knows that even this tiny reform of the system is unachievable. He’s wasting our time.  Real change only happens in politics when there is a surge of energy among large sections of the population, and it’s extremely unlikely that more than a handful of people are going to be active towards “fixing” Obamacare— they want to drown it.

Moore’s attempt to funnel people’s outrage at Obamacare towards a “public option” falls laughably short, and this is likely his intention, since his ongoing piecemeal “criticisms” of the system have only served to salvage a sunken ship.

Instead of wasting energy trying to pry Obamacare out of the grip of the corporations, Moore would be better served to focus exclusive energy towards expanding the movement for Medicare For All, which he claims that he also supports, while maintaining that somehow Obamacare will evolve into Single Payer system. 

IT WILL......MEDICAID FOR ALL!

Most developed nations have achieved universal health care through a single payer system, which in the United States can be easily achieved by expanding Medicare to everybody.  Once the realities of Obamacare directly affect the majority of the population and exacerbates the crisis of U.S. healthcare, people will inevitably choose to support the movement of Medicare for All, the only real option for a sane health care system.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).  He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com


__________________________________________________

Cutting a trillion from Medicare and then allowing health corporations decide how those cuts will be made.....by limiting patient access of course. THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!

As the American people are now calling for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All you see neo-liberals and Obama are busy dismantling that as a public health program.  First you make it too expensive to access and then you pass TPP which does not allow policy that prevents private profits in health care!

So, this isn't just the poor and working class losing their access, it is the seniors and disabled as well.  Those upper-middle class still affording to buy private insurance------about 5% of Americans!

Medicare reimbursement cuts threaten access to care

Published on March 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM ·News Medical

Physicians and patients alike are feeling the impact of Medicare reimbursement cuts that went into effect on January 1, 2013. With an additional 2% sequestration cut to roll out on April 1, it's likely that physicians who treat Medicare patients will be faced with difficult decisions as operating margins continue to shrink.

The the 2% cuts may seem modest, but they come on the heels of much larger cuts to reimbursement for nerve conduction studies (NCSs) of 40-70% for Medicare beneficiaries. These cuts were announced November 1, 2012, and went into effect on January 1, 2013, allowing providers little time to prepare.

While all Medicare providers are feeling the squeeze, private practices are likely to experience the most impact. "These cuts may force private practice physicians to choose between seeing Medicare patients and keeping their practice open," said Catherine French, AANEM senior analyst of medical economic affairs. French is concerned that the sequestration cuts will be adopted by private insurers, too. "It is possible that private insurers will follow suit and reduce reimbursement by 2% because most model their payment rates on Medicare."

Cuts Threaten Access to Care
According to Kristi Snihurowych, MD, a spine interventionalist in Salt Lake City, UT, the cuts pose a serious risk to access to care. Snihurowych has decided to discontinue EMG and NCS testing, which previously made up an eighth of her total practice. "Given the cuts, it's no longer feasible to perform these tests in-house. The problem is, I cannot find anyone to do them for me," said Snihurowych. "It seems everyone has had to give them up, and not just for Medicare patients. Providers anticipate that other payers will soon follow suit, so many have stopped offering EMGs all together."

Snihurowych suspects unnecessary and costly procedures will be among the cuts' ripple effects. "I am seeing patients go to surgery without a definitive diagnosis of, for example, carpal tunnel syndrome because the surgeons cannot get confirmation by an EMG or NCS test."

Utah-based physiatrist Faisel M. Zaman, MD, PC, agreed, "People will pay with their health. Of course there will be financial costs associated with unnecessary surgeries, but the biggest cost will be to the patients with scars and pain from procedures they didn't need."

Zaman is a spine specialist who has had several cases where an EMG has prevented patients from undergoing major surgery. In one case, a healthy and active 70-year-old male patient was referred by a vascular surgeon who thought the patient was experiencing symptoms of peripheral vascular disease. But the surgeon wanted to rule out spinal problems before he did a major bypass operation. Following EMG testing, the man was diagnosed with spinal stenosis.

"EMG was critical in this case," said Zaman. "It turns out that he is a great candidate for nonvascular treatments that will improve his condition. Without the lower-extremity EMG, he would have undergone major surgery. It's scary to think of the consequences to patients if the availability of EMG testing becomes more limited. Ultimately, it would hurt patients the most."

Claire Wolfe, MD, AANEM past president, has similar concerns regarding access to care. Nearing retirement and working part-time, she is the only physician performing EDX studies for an office of 23 physicians, as well as some outside referrals. Before the cuts, two other physiatrists in her office performed EMGs.

"There will be greater uncertainty around diagnoses of upper and lower limb pain/numbness; neck surgeries rather than carpal tunnel releases and vice-versa; delayed diagnoses of motor unit diseases; and delayed recognition of folks with metabolic disorders like diabetes if patients don't have access to an electrodiagnostic study that may catch peripheral neuropathy changes before the diagnosis of the underlying disorder is made," Wolfe said.

Unfortunately, the impact of the cuts may be long-lasting. "These cuts will significantly impact Medicare beneficiary access to appropriate management of their disabling neurologic disorders, limit further the number of neurologists who are currently seeing Medicare patients, and discourage budding physicians from the field of neurology," said Mohammed Zafar, MD, in response to an AANEM survey about the Medicare reimbursement cuts for EDX procedures.

Looking Forward
With the cuts to Medicare reimbursement, AANEM members are asking what can be done to protect their practices and to ensure access to care for patients into the future.




___________________________________________________

As this article shows big PHARMA drives TPP and it will basically end a nation's ability to lower prices either with restrictions to generic brands or collective purchasing power as is sought in the US in the case of Medicare.  As you hear neo-liberals saying good-bye doughnut hole/co-pays for PHARMA.....they are working to be sure you won't be able to afford it.

Who is PHARMA?  Well, Bill Gates is PHARMA in his funding of research for drugs to prevent disease in Asian and African nations.  Was he really being philanthropic or just getting the jump on global PHARMA markets?  Johns Hopkins is now attached to its BIO-TECH branch that will market its patents coming from taxpayer funded research.  IT IS NOW PHARMA.

WE NEED TO BE ELECTING POLITICIANS SHOUTING FOR EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL AND GETTING RID OF THE GLOBAL CORPORATE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SUPPORTERS!

Notice this article was written in 2011----everyone in power has known this was coming that long-----DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR POL WAS KEPT IN THE DARK!


Conclusion: A New International Agreement on Pharmaceutical Price Regulation?

The TPP chapter may be best seen as a significant step toward the pharmaceutical industry’s ultimate goal, which is a binding international agreement on drug pricing that would restrain the ability of governments to use collective purchasing power to demand prices below “market” levels.



  For immediate release.


By Sean Flynn, sflynn@wcl.american.edu

Lima, Peru. on October 22, 2011

Among the US Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) proposals leaked today was a proposed chapter on “Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Healthcare Technologies,” more widely known as the Pharmaceutical Pricing Chapter.

All countries negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement should reject this proposal, the primary goal of which is to regulate pharmaceutical reimbursement programs. This is an extreme proposal that has no place in a trade negotiation, particularly one with some of the poorest countries in the world.



Although the provisions are styled as “transparency” provisions, in fact they regulate the substance of drug pricing programs. The heart of the proposal would require that countries establish new administrative and judicial appeal systems to contest whether public drug reimbursement rates “appropriately recognize the value” of pharmaceutical patents. Similar provisions have led to higher drug prices and more challenges by pharmaceutical companies in the one country to implement similar provisions – Australia.[1]

At the core of this proposal is a false distinction between government reimbursement prices and “market” prices. Government reimbursement prices ARE market prices. Suppliers can refuse to supply to governments, just as they can with any private purchaser demanding a better deal. The fact that governments obtain better prices than atomized consumers does not make their roles as purchasers anti-market. Drug price restraint is a natural, inevitable and beneficial result of public health expenditure or any other form of pooled purchasing. Large purchasers in free markets obtain better prices; governments obtain better prices when they pool consumers and negotiate as a volume purchaser.

Raising drug prices is, of course, the goal of pharmaceutical companies pushing for these provisions. This point was explained by President Bush’s Ambassador to Poland in a recently released cable. He explained:

While pharmaceuticals companies often assert that they would be happy with a transparent process, even if it led to decisions not to fund their drugs, in practice they seem to resent all government measures aimed at cost containment, as these also inevitably limit drug companies’ sales.[2]

This proposal is contrary to the demands of democracy, is bad for the development interests of poorer countries, and represents an affront to best practices in evidence-based health policy, including such practices in the US.

  • Pharmaceutical price regulation is an inappropriate subject for closed door trade negotiations. The proposed pharmaceutical chapter regulates public health policy, not trade. This is perhaps most notable in the fact that the provisions apply to policies regardless of any trade distorting or discriminatory effect of the given policy. Using secretive trade negotiation processes to set minimum requirements for domestic health policy like this is democratically illegitimate. Enactment of reimbursement policies to advance public health outcomes lies in the core of domestic sovereignty. These policies do not affect a limited range of companies, justifying closed door processes where only those companies are meaningfully consulted. Public health policies affect all citizens and a wide variety of stakeholders that deserve to be included in policy making processes. Indeed, access to decision making processes that impact public health programs is an internationally recognized human right.
  • Pharmaceutical price regulation is an inappropriate subject for agreements with developing countries. This would be the first-ever international agreement regulating the efficacy of pharmaceutical price regulations in developing countries. The ability to regulate the prices of patented products directly is one of the most important TRIPS flexibilities. Without some kind of price control, patents on pharmaceuticals demonstratively and predictably lead to excessive pricing of medicines in developing countries with very high income inequality. This is because the most profitable behavior of an unregulated essential service monopolist in high inequality countries will be to price to the richest tier of the population. [3] All of the developing countries negotiating the TPP (Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Chile) have been identified as having high medicine prices given their development level. [4] The case of Vietnam is particularly egregious – with local prices of patented medicines 46 times higher than international referents.[5]
  • The U.S. proposal would require bad public policy contrary to best practices in the US itself. Ironically and ominously, US drug pricing programs do not comply with the standards that the US is proposing. In particular, the operation of preferred drug lists by the Federal Medicaid program would violate the terms of the agreement, including because they do not provide appeals for pharmaceutical companies on whether the prices achieved adequately value patents. Previous FTAs with Australia and Korea carefully exempted all U.S. programs from their coverage, including through a footnote defining the federal Medicaid program as a “regional,” rather than “central,” level government program. That footnote has been removed from the draft TPP proposal. This may indicate that the US has not decided whether to propose exempting Medicaid from the TPP requirements or to give in to demands of other countries for full reciprocity in the agreement.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

X.1: Agreed Principles. The agreed principles are verbatim restatements from the KORUS agreement. As in KORUS, they understate the role and importance of promoting affordability through pharmaceutical reimbursement policies. The provisions mainly discuss the promotion of “access” and “availability” of pharmaceuticals. The concept of affordability is mentioned only once. USTR’s recent white paper on TPP and medicines also defines “access” without reference to affordability concerns. One of the key purposes of drug reimbursement programs must be to promote affordable access to pharmaceuticals, not mere availability of the products themselves. This concern applies throughout the proposal.

X.2: Transparency Related to Healthcare Technologies. The provision creates a vague requirement that “all measures” related to pharmaceutical reimbursement be administered in an “objective” manner. This concept of “objective” administration of the law is not a current US legal requirement and is not defined in the agreement. What it means in this context is unclear, which may open opportunities for pharmaceutical companies to attempt to define it through litigation. What is a non-objective administration of the law? Would public interest standards violate the test? What about the choosing of drugs for a formulary based on a multitude of factors including price and availability decisions?

X.3: Procedural Fairness Related to Healthcare Technologies. This is the core section forcing countries to use formal rulemaking processes rather than market negotiations to determine reimbursement prices. International law should not determine this important policy choice. Countries must be free to use reimbursement programs as a player in the market rather than as its regulator.

X.3(a): The term “reasonable period” has no definition in the agreement or in US or international law. It invites litigation.

X.3(b): The requirement to disclose all methodologies used to negotiate drug prices is one of many rules forcing the government to operate as a price regulator rather than market participant. Private companies do not disclose such information to their suppliers.

X.3(c): The requirement to give notice and comment opportunities during reimbursement decisions prevents health authorities from using negotiation rather regulation to set drug prices. Private entities do not invite public comments on their negotiations with suppliers.

X.3(d): This is one of the most worrisome provisions in the text. The provision has two parts:

  • The first part encourages countries to abandon any economy of scale benefits from pooled purchasing through government and instead reimburse pharmaceutical companies at rates “consisting of competitive market-driven prices in the Party’s territory.” The restriction to “in the Party’s territory” was not included in previous agreements and is designed to restrict countries from the common practice of using international reference prices to determine reasonable reimbursement rates. This rule is not followed in the US. Medicaid programs receive discounts of up to 50% off the list price for pharmaceuticals due to their increased purchasing power. The provision is also practically unworkable since other large private purchasers in the market will not be under any obligation to disclose their “market-driven” prices.
  • The second part of this section, read with paragraph (i), provides that if countries do not set reimbursement prices at the “competitive market-driven” price, then they must provide companies with appeals of whether reimbursement prices “appropriately recognize the value” of patents. There is no objective measure of the “value” of a patent. Economists normally define value as a function of market price. But in a monopoly market for an essential good, particularly in countries with high income inequality, this market price will be excessively high absent government regulation. It is impossible to know how this provision would be implemented. It invites litigation and promotes uncertainty.
X.3(e): This provision mandates that countries allow companies to “apply for an increased amount” in reimbursement based on evidence of “superior safety, efficacy or quality.” This provision is potentially beneficial in embracing the idea that prices should be set based on efficacy rather than market value. Nonetheless, affordability concerns must also be an integral part of reimbursement decisions, but are not mentioned.

X.3(f): This provision mandates that governments allow companies to “apply” for reimbursements for additional medical indications for products. The provision has no requirement that the additional indications applied for first be approved by the government’s medical registration authorities. It rather suggests that the safety and efficacy information would be submitted directly to the reimbursement entity, side stepping regulatory authorities.

X.3(g, h, i): These provisions require that governments provide written reasons for every decision [(g) and (h)] and then provide an “independent appeal” of any reimbursement decision (i), presumably based on the substantive restrictions on reimbursement programs defined in X.2(d). These provisions will likely increase pharmaceutical company negotiating power to exact higher prices from governments through litigation threats.

X.3(k): This provision requires that all members of reimbursement committees be made public, presumably to enable targeted lobbying from pharmaceutical companies. Such lobbying can be detrimental to public decision making, especially when linked to unethical gift giving that has plagued pharmaceutical marketing in the US and elsewhere.

X.4: Dissemination of Information to Health Professionals and Consumers. This provision attempts to set drug marketing policy through trade agreements. It would mandate that countries allow certain kinds of direct-to-consumer and direct-to-physician marketing efforts over the internet. This is a subject currently subject to regulatory investigations in the US and would be contrary to the drug marketing laws of many countries. The provision would appear to make illegal a proposal by Representative Waxman that companies not be allowed to engage in certain kinds of direct to consumer promotion in the first three years of a drug’s time on the market.

X.5: Ethical business practices [no text]. As in other areas of the TPP, provisions protecting corporate concerns are well developed and those potentially protecting consumers are absent. This section should consider standards that would ban gift giving and other pecuniary relationships between pharmaceutical companies and prescribers or government health officials. It should ban off-label marketing of drugs. It should mandate private and public rights of action against fraudulent and misleading marketing practices.

X.6: Cooperation. As in the agreed principles, this provision appears tailored to promote a conception of “availability” that does not include affordability. The key concern of countries in the region, and in particular the US, should be on sharing information on how best to ensure the affordability of medicines in the context of the ongoing economic crisis.

X.7: Definitions. Few of the key terms in the agreement are defined, including “access,” “value,” “reimbursement” and “health care programs” as applied to the scope of coverage, “transparent,” “verifiable,” “objective,” “competitive-market derived,” “independent” as related to “appeal or review.”

X.7 fn 2. (US carve out?). In previous agreements with the US including pharmaceutical chapters, the US has claimed that they have no application to programs in the US. The KORUS agreement included a footnote stating: “For greater certainty, Medicaid is a regional level of government health care program in the United States, not a central level of government program.” This footnote has been criticized in the US for potentially leaving vulnerable other US programs that control prices on drugs in government programs, including through Medicare and the so-called 340b program. TPP removes this footnote form the proposed text and substitutes a bracketed place holder for clarification of the scope of application. This should be concerning to US health advocates and officials. A letter from several senior members of the US Congress, released during the Chicago round of negotiations, instructed that “TPP should not undermine either U.S. or other member countries’ current or prospective, non-discriminatory drug reimbursement policies and programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and other programs).” Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin wrote President Obama with respect to a possible TPP pharmaceutical chapter:

Even if a chapter was proposed that did include a Medicaid carve-out, state leaders believe it is inappropriate for U.S. trade policy to advance restrictions on pharmaceutical pricing programs that U.S. programs do not meet but for technical carve outs.[6]

Conclusion: A New International Agreement on Pharmaceutical Price Regulation?

The TPP chapter may be best seen as a significant step toward the pharmaceutical industry’s ultimate goal, which is a binding international agreement on drug pricing that would restrain the ability of governments to use collective purchasing power to demand prices below “market” levels.[7] This is a radical proposal that would move trade agreements completely beyond any pretense to regulate trade and instead directly regulate domestic regulation itself. If such an agreement is desired by countries, it should be negotiated in an open forum where public health experts and advocates are well represented, e..g the World Health Organization. This is a completely inappropriate subject for closed door trade negotiations.





__________________________________________________
Selling this policy as helping to insure groups not previously covered is a ploy to hide the real mission and that is to end public health and programs that protect the public on health issues.  Does it matter if you have subsidized insurance coverage if you cannot pay to access it?  Of course not.  The ACA makes it sound as if people will gain access when in fact they are losing it!

Review of U.S. Health Care Law from a Human Rights Perspective

DGH Supports Medicare for All


Many misconceptions exist, both in the U.S. and abroad, about the health care reform law recently passed in the U.S. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) implements a series of health care and insurance related provisions to take effect over years -- most by 2014.

A recent report by the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI) has published several documents that point out where this law has failed women, immigrants, and people of color.  

To briefly explain, the PPACA will extend health insurance to 32 million more Americans. Many will get insurance through Medicaid, a federal social insurance program for the poor, which will be expanded to cover all citizens and some legal residents up to 133% of the federal poverty level. The PPACA will subsidize insurance premiums for lower income individuals and families, and give financial incentives to businesses to provide health care benefits to employees. It initiates consumer protections from certain insurance company abuses such as being cut off (“rescission”) and discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions.  It will mandate that all legally residing U.S. residents obtain medical insurance, and state-based insurance “exchanges” will be established. It will establish a non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to assess the relative outcomes, effectiveness and appropriateness of various treatments. Funding for community health centers and payments for primary care services will increase substantially. Cost sharing for preventive care will be eliminated, and it will also eliminate co-pays for prescription drugs for those with Medicare.

Although more people will obtain insurance once the law is fully in effect in 2014, this actually insures that more public and private funds will flow to pharmaceutical, insurance, hospital and other health care industry corporations. An estimated $447 billion in taxpayer money from the new law will go directly to the health insurance industry alone. While the PPACA creates some important consumer protections and will expand health care coverage for millions, it continues to strengthen a profit-driven and fractured approach to health in the U.S. It is far from a comprehensive system of health care for all.

Impact of the PPACA on marginalized and vulnerable groups

Under the new law, an estimated 23 million Americans will remain uninsured.  This translates to 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually, and preventable and unnecessary suffering for those who remain without access to healthcare. In addition, many previously uninsured will be mandated to spend a significant portion of their income on health care from private insurers and still may not have comprehensive coverage. On average, poor people will spend 10% of their income to cover 70% of health care expenses, with co-pays and fees still unaffordable for many  Medicaid expansion will largely be outsourced by the federal government to private insurance companies, raising concerns over for-profit abuse of Medicaaid. Federal payments to hospitals with a large proportion of uninsured and low-income patients will be lowered, limiting much needed services.

Under the new law, the health rights of women have been undermined.  Gender-based higher insurance rates for women will remain legal until at least 2017, and large employer based insurance programs will be exempt from the new PPACA provision on gender rating prohibition. Women’s reproductive rights have been eroded, as the law seriously restricts access to abortion by requiring segregation of federal insurance funds for abortion from all other medical services. This means that government funds to finance insurance programs in the PPACA cannot be used for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or if a woman’s life is in danger. Contraception is currently not considered a “preventive” service, so women may continue to pay for this out of pocket, despite the PPACA law that eliminates fees and co-pays for preventive services. 

Under the new law, documented immigrants are subject to the health insurance mandate upon entry to the U.S., but still face waiting periods of 5 or more years to qualify for government social services such as Medicaid. This means the large expansion of Medicaid under the new law excludes all recent immigrants. Undocumented immigrants will be unable to access state exchanges to purchase their own insurance. Nor will Medicaid (except in cases of medical emergency) or other social services be open to them. This continues a dire and inhumane practice for asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants that denies them essential health care. In addition, overly strict verification requirements for the exchanges may lead to an exclusion of many eligible applicants. 

Again, please share this information. The struggle is not over for fair, equitable, and comprehensive health care for all in the U.S.


_________________________________________________
As we see below, the ACA was simply a policy preparing the US market for these TPP treaties.....and as you see the US is criss-crossing the world pressuring other nations to shed their public health because, after all, the US now sees health care as purely market driven.....as it does education.  GOOD BYE PUBLIC HEALTH !

If Obama and neo-liberals are working so hard overseas to end public health and create these TPP treaties that super-size corporate control of all public policy especially health care......DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY ARE SITTING ON CAPITOL HILL FIGHTING REPUBLICANS IN OUR BEHALF?????

REALLY?????




Public Health Advocates Must Derail the TranPacific Partnership

December 29, 2013


Kris Alman, Assistant Secretary of Health for Data Privacy

Without public input, fast-track passage of this treaty could jeopardize their important work with the threat of costly lawsuits that put profits over people.

The mainstream media should be ashamed of its minimal attempts at informing the American people about the TranPacific Partnership (TPP). Negotiated in secret, the TPP is NAFTA on steroids. It’s urgent we demand that Congress oppose a “fast track” of this treaty.

You may be muttering, “Why pay attention to this irrelevant issue?” After all, we’re too busy working long hours to buy cheap Nike shoes, iPads and apparel from retailers like Walmart to celebrate the Christmas® holidays.

Indeed, we are so busy buying stuff destined for landfills that we don’t realize we are disposable too. The wizards behind the curtain of the TPP are 600 corporate “advisors” for rich multi-national corporations that don’t care about public health, the environment and human rights. They care about profits—period.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a front-page story, “Tobacco Firms’ Strategy Limits Poorer Nations’ Smoking Laws.” While the Times pointed out that the U.S. is among twelve Pacific Rim Countries completing talks on a major new trade treaty that will be a “model for the rules of international commerce,” they made no mention of the TPP. “Fast tracking” the TPP requires a complicit mainstream media—one that eliminates enough dots so citizens can’t connect them.

The Oregonian is no different. As a scribe for Nike, the Oregonian reports that the TPP would eliminate tariffs on sneakers (outsourced to manufacturers who pay low wages overseas) and magically, we'll have more high-paying jobs here! Money needs to circulate for a society to thrive. Since the 2008 recession, we’ve learned that money is heading in just one direction: upwards. Global trade agreements will further concentrate money and power when corporate boardrooms reward their executives—including Nike CEO Mark Parker.

A Nixon innovation, fast track limits Congress to a no-amendments, no-filibuster, simple majority vote on complex trade agreements—even though the rare Congressman or Senator has read the TPP. Fast track expired in 2007. A midterm election compels the most do-nothing Congress to make amends to their corporate donors. Passing fast track in early 2014 is a bipartisan agenda.

The TPP is much more than tariffs. There are twenty-nine chapters and only five chapters deal with traditional trade issues. In mid-November, Wikileaks released draft text of the TPP Intelligential Property Rights chapter. This text includes an investor-state protection clause that gives multi-national corporations the right to sue communities, states and nations enacting laws that might compromise future profits.

The TPP singles out tobacco as a health concern, but the Chamber of Commerce says this “would leave the door open for other products, like soda or sugar, to be heavily regulated in other countries.” The Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, opposing the “last-minute inclusion of a product-specific reference to tobacco or any other product.” They claimed “the TPP nor any prior U.S. trade agreement prevents American officials from regulating in the public interest—period. Trade agreements only require that such measures be based in sound science…”

Like the “sound science” performed by Monsanto that “proves” GMOs are safe and labeling is a costly regulatory burden?  One of the lobbyists that co-signed the letter is the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The Grocery Manufacturers Association amassed $7.2 million (of over $22 million in the opposition coffers) to successfully oppose GMO labeling in Washington State. PepsiCo, Nestle USA and Coca-Cola each donated over $1 million to that Grocery Manufacturers Association slush fund.

Corporations are tribal when they collectively fight public health campaigns because it’s costly for corporations to also fight “sin taxes.” In 2010, these same corporations helped to raise over $16 million to pass Initiative 1107 which repealed a tax on candy and soda in Washington. This discouraged Upstream Health, a nonprofit in Oregon, to mount a similar campaign to tax sugary sodas in 2013, especially since they couldn’t get a hearing for the same bill in 2011. Yet there is no question that sugar-sweetened beverages promote obesity.

Since the mainstream media protects corporate interests, WikiLeaks came to the rescue in publishing the Intellectual Property chapter of the TPP. If you can't stomach Julian Assange, turn to Joseph Stiglitz, (Columbia professor and winner of the Nobel Prize for Economic Science in 2001), who wrote an open letter to the TPP negotiators. Sadly, we must look to blogs for this publication. Stiglitz concludes, "The investor state dispute resolution mechanisms should not be shrouded in mystery to the general public, while the same provisions are routinely discussed with advisors to big corporations.

The invisible hand of “free” market forces is what Milton Friedman calls “the possibility of cooperation without coercion.” In the current era of mass communication and micro-targeted advertising, corporations have the upper hand when they defend their ability to obfuscate harms, laying blame on people that should take “personal responsibility” for their consumer choices.

More than three-quarters of the world’s smokers now live in the developing world, too poor to fight corporate lawsuits that might arise if they try to place limits on advertising, packaging and sale of tobacco products. With deep pockets, corporations squelch the voice of public health advocates while they belittle consumer protections as the “nanny state.”

The TPP subordinates public health, the environment and human rights to corporate profits. As global citizens, we must take time to learn more about the TPP. Call Congress and demand NO FAST TRACK.

~ Kris Alman serves as Assistant Secretary of Health for Data Privacy in the General Welfare Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet.




___________________________________________________
Here you see an article written last year.  This information was available to all politicians and pundits that pushed the ACA as hard as they could.....knowing it simply prepared US policy for these TPP deals.

Know who shouted loudly and who was silent------silence in these cases is duplicity and in Maryland----all democrats are silent and neo-liberals have to go!


IF YOUR LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT RUNNING CANDIDATES IN ALL PRIMARIES AGAINST NEO-LIBERALS -----THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU AND ME!

TPP’s Investment Rules Harm Public Health
27/06/2012
Trade officials from nine Pacific Rim nations—Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S. and Vietnam— are in intensive, closed- door negotiations to sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement in 2012. Every Pacific Rim nation from China and Russia to Indonesia and Japan could eventually be included. There are draft texts for many of this pact’s 26 chapters, most of which have nothing to do with trade, but rather impose limits on domestic food safety, health, environmental, and other policies. The governments won’t release the texts to the public. But over 600 U.S. corpo rate “trade advisors” have full access. America’s worst job-offshoring corporations, global banks, agribusiness, and pharmaceutical giants want this deal to be another corporate power tool like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement.) Consumer, labor, environmental, and other public interest advocates want transparen- cy in the process and a “Fair Deal or No Deal.”

A major goal of U.S. multinational corporations for the TPP is to impose on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system. This system allows foreign corporations to challenge before international tribunals national health, consumer safety, environmental, and other laws and regulations that apply to domestic and foreign firms alike. Outrageously, this regime elevates individual corporations and investors to equal standing with each TPP signatory country’s government – and above all of us citizens. This regime would empower corporations to skirt national courts and sue our governments before tribunals of private sector lawyers operating under UN and World Bank rules to demand taxpayer compensation for domestic regulatory policies that investors believe diminish their “expected future profits.” These regulatory policies can be anything from health and environmental protection to financial regulation. Indeed, under this regime, corporations can launch attacks on changes in government regulation surrounding patents and other intellectual property rights – something that can cast a chill on efforts to improve access to safe and affordable generics.

If a corporation “wins”, the taxpayers of the “losing” country must foot the bill. Over $350 million in compensation has already been paid out to corporations in a series of investor-state cases under NAFTA-style deals alone. This includes attacks on toxics bans, natural resource policies, health and safety measures, and more. In fact, of the over $12.5 billion in the 17 claims now pending under NAFTA-style deals, all relate to public health, environmental, and transportation policy – not traditional trade issues. Even when governments win, they waste scarce budgetary resources defending national policies against these corporate attacks.

A review of just some of the outrageous cases brought under this system highlights the extreme peril of these extreme investor privileges and their investor-state private enforcement being included in a TPP: 

Investor-state attack on cigarette plain packaging policies:

In the mid-2000s, countries from around the world signed onto the World Health Organization’s Frame- work Convention on Tobacco Control, which aims “to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke by providing a framework for tobacco control measures to be implemented by the Parties at the national, regional and international levels in order to reduce continually and substantially the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke…”

In 2008, Uruguay began implementing its obligations under this framework, including through legislation to enhance tobacco warning labels and require plain packaging. In 2010, Australia followed suit. But before the ink was even dry on these efforts, Philip Morris launched investor-state attacks against both countries. While the company is widely considered a U.S. company, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement doesn’t have investor-state arbitration, thanks to the push-back of legislators in both countries at the time of negotiation. So Philip Morris used its Swiss and Hong Kong subsidiaries to launch the attacks, using Bilateral Investment Treaties. The company is requesting investor-state tribunals to block the Uruguayan and Australian legislation from going into effect, and to have taxpayers of these nations compensate the company.  

Justice for children poisoned by smelter imperiled by investor-state:

Citizens in La Oroya, Peru suffer from the toxic emissions from a metal smelter owned by Ira Rennert, one of the richest men in the United States.  

An in-depth scientific study of the site – deemed among the top 10 most polluted worldwide – noted that sulfur dioxide concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards, noting that the chemical “damages the respiratory system, aggravates existing respiratory illnesses (especially bronchitis), and diminishes the capacity of the lungs to expel foreign particles such as heavy metals. It leads to a higher mortality rate, particularly when combined with the presence of elevated levels of particulate material.” The study found that sulfur dioxide levels doubled in the years after Rennert’s acquisition of the complex. When Rennert’s company bought the smelter, it agreed to construct a sulfur plant by 2006, which  would help with environmental remediation. But the company did not, and requested – and was granted extensions in 2006 and 2009.  That same year, the company presented a proposal to the Peruvian authorities to restart the smelter if the environmental commitments were loosened. The Peruvian government refused, and by the end of the year, Rennert had launched an attack under the U.S.-Peru FTA, claiming at least $800 million in damages. Among other claims, the company argues Peru’s failure to grant additional extensions constitutes an FTA violation. Unfortunately, past tribunals have found that countries can violate FTAs by disappointing investors’ expectations. Rennert’s efforts seem to have succeeded in casting a chill on the Peruvian government, which is slated to loosen the environmental requirements that the company must meet.  

Canada reverses ban on toxic gasoline additive after investor-state attack, pays $13 million.

Ethyl Corporation was a Virginia-based chemical company with a long and controversial history. In the 1950s, Ethyl Corporation developed a new gasoline additive called methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT). MMT, an anti-knocking agent used to improve engine performance, contains manganese – a known human neurotoxin. MMT was banned from use in unleaded gasoline by California, which has its own clean air law, and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, due to environmental and public health concerns. Against this background, the Canadian Parliament imposed a ban on the import and interprovincial transport of MMT in April 1997. 

Although the potential hazards to human health were not fully-known, Canada acted in a precautionary manner until more information was available, as had the state of California and the U.S. EPA. But on September 10, 1996, while the prospective ban was being debated in the Canadian Parliament, Ethyl Corporation notified the government of Canada that it would sue for compensation under NAFTA’s investment chapter if restrictions were placed on MMT. The Parliament withstood these threats and passed the ban a year later in April 1997. That same month, Ethyl filed a NAFTA investor-state claim against the Canadian government. Initially, Canada objected to the NAFTA suit. On June 24, 1998, however, the NAFTA panel rejected Canada’s claims, clearing the way for the case to move forward. Shortly after this initial ruling, the government of Canada decided to settle with Ethyl.  

On July 20, 1998, Canada reversed its ban on MMT, paid $13 million in legal fees and damages to the Ethyl Corporation, and issued a statement for Ethyl’s use in advertising declaring that “current scientific information” did not demonstrate MMT's toxicity or that MMT impairs functioning of automotive diagnostic systems. This case shows how investor-state rules can cast a chill on public interest regulation. 


Growing resistance.

The investor-state system is so extreme that it is losing whatever small political support it ever had. Australia has said it will not include investor-state in its trade deals, and the Korean opposition parties are promising to derail the pending Korea-U.S. trade deal unless investor-state is removed. Latin American countries are pulling out of various arbitration agreements that provide venues for these private corporate attacks. President Obama even campaigned against this system! But career bureaucrats and big business want to stay the course, no matter the cost.





_____________________________________________________

Johns Hopkins has used a trillion dollars in public taxpayer money to build its global health corporation.....a few billion in Baltimore alone as the city crumbles from lack of government revenues.  When questioned about paying corporate taxes since it is now a global corporation Hopkins stated 'we will not pay taxes'.  It now controls the entire City of Baltimore development and policies are all neo-con.

This is what the ACA is all about.  It is a mirror of the Clinton banking deregulation and consolidation and is only meant to create global health corporations like these.  Hopkins declared health institutions have never been more profitable as quality of care/access has plummeted. 


8 Health Systems That Created International Partnerships in 2013

Written by Bob Herman  | December 26, 2013 Becker's Hospital Review


Globalization is a major part of the business sector, and several U.S. health systems have also grown their roles internationally.

Several providers expanded their work and ideas into other countries. Here are eight hospitals and health systems that created some of the most significant international partnerships in the past year, starting with the most recent.

1. Irving, Texas-based Christus Health finalized a joint venture with Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a Chilean university in Santiago. Under the agreement, the two will become equity partners in a Santiago, Chile-based health network called Red Salud UC. 

2. Brentwood, Tenn.-based RegionalCare Hospital Partners partnered with Nashville, Tenn.-based nonprofit LiveBeyond to open a hospital in Thomazeau, Haiti.

3. Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Health partnered with YMCI Calmette Medical Investment & Management Company, a state-owned health system in China's Yunnan province. Sanford launched its World Clinics initiative in 2007 to develop a series of pediatric clinics in the U.S. and around the world in areas lacking sufficient primary care services. It has since expanded the scope of the initiative to provide care for entire families.

4. Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins Medicine International signed an affiliation agreement with Hospital Moinhos de Vento of Porto Alegre in Brazil. 


DOES 'MEDICINE INTERNATIONAL' SOUND LIKE A CORPORATION AND NOT A NON-PROFIT?  YOU BETCHA, BUT THEY ARE STILL CATEGORIZED AS NON-PROFIT AS IS MEDSTAR, A NATIONAL HOSPITAL CHAIN!

5. University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and Chennai, India-based Apollo Hospitals discussed a potential affiliation. Apollo is one of the largest private hospital networks in its region, with 50 hospitals located across India and eight other countries in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

6. A July agreement between Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev University and Pittsburgh-based UPMC's Pitt School of Medicine will help NU open its first medical school

7. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center announced its commercialization arm, Wake Forest Innovations, signed a memorandum of understanding with CHA Health Systems, based in Seoul, South Korea.

8. Cleveland Clinic signed a contract with an academic medical center in Beijing, where Cleveland Clinic physicians will consult on the opening of a new brain health facility.






__________________________________________________

I showed recently that 80% of Americans have now been driven to the poverty line so will not be able to afford the premium payments much less the co-pays and deductibles.  THAT IS THE POINT! 

What they are doing is setting up a system of 'preventative care' that fills the entitlement system with the same kinds of health care that most of the health fraud exists.  OK, you get preventative care checkups that find you have HIV....how do you afford the treatment?  YOU DO NOT.  You do get placed in the database as having this illness and these lists will be available to corporations who then will not hire you.  You have no job, no access to basic health care for HIV and you die prematurely.  This same scenario plays for any of the chronic illnesses that require long-term treatment and we know most people will not afford treatment beyond the first level of care.  It systematically kills most Americans.


Why are they doing this?  Because these few decades health industry has been stealing hundreds of billions of dollars each year from Medicare and Medicaid so these Trusts are gutted by fraud.  Then, they dismantled all of the oversight in Medicare agencies and allowed profiteering with super-sized pricing that drained these Trusts----WE PAID FOR THE MEDICAL ADVANCES AND WE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THEM!

FRAUD AND PROFITEERING IS THE PROBLEM AND OBAMA AND NEO-LIBERALS MADE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ABOUT ELIMINATING ACCESS TO GET RID OF COSTS THAT CUT INTO PROFIT.

Everyone understands that simply having a few health incidents a year will end a family's ability to access more care!

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

By Tami Luhby  @Luhby June 13, 2013: 6:23 AM ET


Participants may have different views on whether Obamacare plans are affordable.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) Until now, much of the debate swirling around Obamacare has focused on the cost of premiums in the state-based health insurance exchanges. But what will enrollees actually get for that monthly charge?

States are starting to roll out details about the exchanges, providing a look at just how affordable coverage under the Affordable Care Act will be. Some potential participants may be surprised at the figures: $2,000 deductibles, $45 primary care visit co-pays, and $250 emergency room tabs.

Those are just some of the charges enrollees will incur in a silver-level plan in California, which recently unveiled an overview of the benefits and charges associated with its exchange. That's on top of the $321 average monthly premium.

For some, this will be great news since it will allow them to see the doctor without breaking the bank. But others may not want to shell out a few thousand bucks in addition to a monthly premium.

"The hardest question is will it be a good deal and will consumers be able to afford it," said Marian Mulkey, director of the health reform initiative at the California Healthcare Foundation. "The jury is still out. It depends on their circumstances."

A quick refresher on Obamacare: People who don't have affordable health insurance through their employers will be able to sign up for coverage through state-based exchanges. Enrollment is set to begin in October, with coverage taking effect in January. You must have some form of coverage next year, or you will face annual penalties of $95 or 1% of family income (whichever is greater) initially and more in subsequent years.

Each state will offer four levels of coverage: platinum, gold, silver and bronze. Platinum plans come with the highest premiums, but lowest out-of-pocket expenses, while bronze plans carry lower monthly charges but require more cost-sharing. Gold and silver fall in the middle.

The federal government will offer premium subsidies to those with incomes of up to four times the federal poverty level. This year, that's $45,960 for an individual or $94,200 for a family of four. There will be additional help to cover out-of-pocket expenses for those earning less than 250% of the poverty line: $28,725 for a single person and $58,875 for a family of four. The subsidies are tied to the cost of the state's silver level plans.


California offers insight into how much participants will actually have to pay under Obamacare. The state, unlike most others, is requiring insurers to offer a standard set of benefits and charges in each plan level. The only variables are monthly premiums, doctor networks and carriers in your area.

For those in need of frequent medical care, the platinum or gold plans would reduce out-of-pocket costs for treatment. These plans have no deductible, and doctors' visits and medication are cheaper. But the trade-off is that they have higher monthly premiums. California has not yet released the premium range for these tiers.

On the flip side, a young man who never visits the doctor and wants to minimize his monthly charge could opt for a bronze plan. A 40-year-old enrolling in this plan could pay as little as $219 a month. But, if he did get sick, he'd get socked with a $5,000 deductible, $60 co-pays for primary care visits and a $300 emergency room charge.

Obamacare provides protection for those who need a lot of care by placing a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. The maximum a person in an individual platinum plan will spend a year is $4,000, while those in the other tiers will shell out no more than $6,400.

"Insurance is expensive. It's hard for anyone who isn't well off to afford it," said Gary Claxton, director of the health care marketplace project at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "But it is good enough that you can afford to get sick without bankrupting yourself."

Whether potential enrollees find these plans affordable will depend on how healthy they are and whether they are currently insured.

Many individual insurance offerings currently available come with much higher deductibles, cover fewer expenses and limits on how much they'll pay out in a year. Plans on the exchange, on the other hand, are required to cover a variety of "essential benefits," including maternity care, mental health services and medication.

"In many cases, depending on the plan, the coverage will be more comprehensive than what the enrollee currently has," said Anne Gonzalez, a spokeswoman with Covered California, which is running the state's exchange.





0 Comments

    Author

    Cindy Walsh is a lifelong political activist and academic living in Baltimore, Maryland.

    Archives

    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    2014 Economic Crash
    21st Century Economy
    Affordable Care Act
    Affordable Care Act
    Alec
    Americorp/VISTA
    Anthony Brown
    Anthony Brown
    Anti Incumbant
    Anti-incumbant
    Anti Incumbent
    Anti Incumbent
    Attacking The Post Office Union
    Baltimore And Cronyism
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Board Of Estimates
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Development Corp
    Baltimore Recall/Retroactive Term Limits
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Fraud
    Bank Of America
    Bank Settlement
    Bank-settlement
    B Corporations
    Bgeexelon Mergerf59060c411
    Brookings Institution
    Business Tax Credits
    California Charter Expansion
    Cardin
    Career Colleges
    Career Colleges Replacing Union Apprenticeships
    Charters
    Charter School
    Collection Agencies
    Common Core
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Consumer-financial-protection-bureau
    Corporate Media
    Corporate-media
    Corporate Oversight
    Corporate-oversight
    Corporate Politicians
    Corporate-politicians
    Corporate Rule
    Corporate-rule
    Corporate Taxes
    Corporate-taxes
    Corporate Tax Reform
    Corporatizing Us Universities
    Cost-benefit-analysis
    Credit Crisis
    Credit-crisis
    Cummings
    Department Of Education
    Department Of Justice
    Department-of-justice
    Derivatives Reform
    Development
    Dismantling Public Justice
    Dodd Frank
    Doddfrankbba4ff090a
    Doug Gansler
    Doug-gansler
    Ebdi
    Education Funding
    Education Reform
    Edwards
    Election Reform
    Election-reform
    Elections
    Emigration
    Energy-sector-consolidation-in-maryland
    Enterprise Zones
    Equal Access
    Estate Taxes
    European Crisis
    Expanded And Improved Medicare For All
    Expanded-and-improved-medicare-for-all
    Failure To Prosecute
    Failure-to-prosecute
    Fair
    Fair And Balanced Elections
    Fair-and-balanced-elections
    Farm Bill
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmaryland
    Federal Election Commissionelection Violationsmarylandd20a348918
    Federal-emergency-management-agency-fema
    Federal Reserve
    Financial Reform Bill
    Food Safety Not In Tpp
    For Profit Education
    Forprofit-education
    Fracking
    Fraud
    Freedom Of Press And Speech
    Frosh
    Gambling In Marylandbaltimore8dbce1f7d2
    Granting Agencies
    Greening Fraud
    Gun Control Policy
    Healthcare For All
    Healthcare-for-all
    Health Enterprise Zones
    High Speed Rail
    Hoyer
    Imf
    Immigration
    Incarceration Bubble
    Incumbent
    Incumbents
    Innovation Centers
    Insurance Industry Leverage And Fraud
    International Criminal Court
    International Trade Deals
    International-trade-deals
    Jack Young
    Jack-young
    Johns Hopkins
    Johns-hopkins
    Johns Hopkins Medical Systems
    Johns-hopkins-medical-systems
    Kaliope Parthemos
    Labor And Justice Law Under Attack
    Labor And Wages
    Lehmann Brothers
    Living Wageunionspolitical Action0e39f5c885
    Maggie McIntosh
    Maggie-mcintosh
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin O'Malley
    Martin-omalley
    Martin-omalley8ecd6b6eb0
    Maryland Health Co Ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops
    Maryland-health-co-ops1f77692967
    Maryland Health Coopsccd73554da
    Maryland Judiciary
    Marylandnonprofits
    Maryland Non Profits
    Maryland Nonprofits2509c2ca2c
    Maryland Public Service Commission
    Maryland State Bar Association
    Md Credit Bondleverage Debt441d7f3605
    Media
    Media Bias
    Media-bias
    Medicaremedicaid
    Medicaremedicaid8416fd8754
    Mental Health Issues
    Mental-health-issues
    Mers Fraud
    Mikulski
    Military Privatization
    Minority Unemploymentunion And Labor Wagebaltimore Board Of Estimates4acb15e7fa
    Municipal Debt Fraud
    Ndaa-indefinite-detention
    Ndaaindefinite Detentiond65cc4283d
    Net Neutrality
    New Economy
    New-economy
    Ngo
    Non Profit To Profit
    Nonprofit To Profitb2d6cb4b41
    Nsa
    O'Malley
    Odette Ramos
    Omalley
    O'Malley
    Open Meetings
    Osha
    Patronage
    Pension-benefit-guaranty-corp
    Pension Funds
    Pension-funds
    Police Abuse
    Private-and-public-pension-fraud
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People
    Private Health Systemsentitlementsprofits Over People6541f468ae
    Private Non Profits
    Private-non-profits
    Private Nonprofits50b33fd8c2
    Privatizing Education
    Privatizing Government Assets
    Privatizing-the-veterans-admin-va
    Privitizing Public Education
    Progressive Policy
    Progressive Taxes Replace Regressive Policy
    Protections Of The People
    Protections-of-the-people
    Public Education
    Public Funding Of Private Universities
    Public Housing Privatization
    Public-libraries-privatized-or-closed
    Public Private Partnerships
    Public-private-partnerships
    Public Transportation Privatization
    Public Utilities
    Rapid Bus Network
    Rawlings Blake
    Rawlings-blake
    Rawlingsblake1640055471
    Real Progressives
    Reit-real-estate-investment-trusts
    Reitreal Estate Investment Trustsa1a18ad402
    Repatriation Taxes
    Rule Of Law
    Rule-of-law
    Ruppersberger
    SAIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
    Sarbanes
    S Corp Taxes
    Selling Public Datapersonal Privacy
    Smart Meters
    Snowden
    Social Security
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement
    Sovereign Debt Fraudsubprime Mortgage Fraudmortgage Fraud Settlement0d62c56e69
    Statistics As Spin
    Statistics-as-spin
    Student-corps
    Subprime Mortgage Fraud
    Subprime-mortgage-fraud
    Surveillance And Security
    Sustainability
    Teachers
    Teachers Unions2bc448afc8
    Teach For America
    Teach For America
    Technology Parks
    Third Way Democrats/new Economy/public Union Employees/public Private Patnerships/government Fraud And Corruption
    Third Way Democratsnew Economypublic Union Employeespublic Private Patnershipsgovernment Fraud And Corruption
    Third-way-democratsnew-economypublic-union-employeespublic-private-patnershipsgovernment-fraud-and-corruptionc10a007aee
    Third Way/neo Liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals
    Third-wayneo-liberals5e1e6d4716
    Third Wayneoliberals7286dda6aa
    Tifcorporate Tax Breaks2d87bba974
    Tpp
    Transportation Inequity In Maryland
    Union Busting
    Unionbusting0858fddb8b
    Unions
    Unionsthird Waypost Officealec3c887e7815
    Universities
    Unreliable Polling
    Unreliable-polling
    Van Hollen
    Van-hollen
    VEOLA Environment -privatization Of Public Water
    Veterans
    War Against Women And Children
    War-against-women-and-children
    Youth Works

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.