NCL statement on Trump Administration’s finalization of Short-Term Plan rule – National Consumers League

/in , /by

August 1, 2018

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC–The National Consumers League (NCL) is deeply disappointed by the finalization of the Short-Term Limited Duration Insurance (STLDI) Plan rule, which allows the sale of short-term health insurance plans that do not comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

The following statement may be attributed to Sally Greenberg, NCL executive director:

“The ‘short-term plan’ final rule will allow insurers to offer junk insurance policies to millions of consumers that fail to meet their healthcare needs. Short-term plans exclude coverage for critically important healthcare services; vary premium rates by gender, health status, and age; and put individuals and families at significant financial risk from unpaid medical bills.

In addition, allowing the expansion of these types of plans for periods up to 364 days (and renewal for up to 3 years) undermines the individual market by pulling healthy individuals away and leaving an older, sicker risk pool behind. As a result of this rule, we fear that many who rely on comprehensive coverage – including women, older adults, and people with chronic conditions – will be left without affordable, comprehensive coverage options.”  

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

NCL’s statement on Trump Administration’s proposed rule on Title X – National Consumers League

/in , /by

August 1, 2018

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—In response to the Trump Administration’s proposed rule on the Title X health care program, the National Consumers League (NCL) has issued the following statement, which may be attributed to Sally Greenberg, NCL executive director:

As a long-time supporter of the Title X Family Planning Program, the National Consumers League (NCL) has significant concerns about the Trump Administration’s Title X “Compliance with Statutory Program Requirements” proposed rule, that would restrict the ability of millions of patients to obtain contraception and preventative care. The proposed rule would also make it significantly more difficult for physicians to explain reproductive health care options, such as family planning services.

NCL strongly believes that the Title X Family Planning Program is integral in providing women and teenagers with reproductive and preventive healthcare services across the United States. In fact, Title X centers have helped to prevent 1 million unintended pregnancies each year. These centers are important because they provide a wide range of preventive healthcare services, such as: wellness exams, birth control, contraception education, and lifesaving cervical and breast cancer screenings.

If HHS implements the proposed rule, there will be extremely detrimental effects on patients in regions of the United States with limited access to health care, as well as economically distressed adults and teenagers without health insurance. If implemented, the proposed rule would seriously restrict the ability of clinicians to explain contraceptive and reproductive healthcare options to their patients. Healthcare education and information is key in order for consumers to make informed choices.

Furthermore, NCL is very concerned about the implications of this proposed rule when it comes to the millions of patients that use Title X services. This proposed rule could result in 40 percent of patients that currently visit Title X centers losing their healthcare services.

NCL urges HHS to analyze all the possible effects that this proposed rule could have on vulnerable populations in the United States before making such sweeping changes to the Title X health care program.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit https://nclnet.org.

Imposters, information theft, and internet scams: the dangers of unregulated online pharmacies – National Consumers League

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

By NCL Food Policy and LifeSmarts Caleigh Bartash

With technology improving rapidly over the past few decades, online retailers have proved more convenient, reducing the market share of brick-and-mortar retailers. However, the convenience of purchasing prescription medication online or over the phone can inadvertently trap consumers in internet scams.Countless issues can arise from ordering prescription medication online. Unapproved internet dealers often evade government recognition or detection, failing to comply with drug safety regulations. Consumers can receive counterfeit, contaminated, or expired drugs. In some cases, these drugs may contain deadly opioids like fentanyl. Unauthorized medications can also have varying amounts of a medicine’s active ingredient — if they contain the correct ingredient at all.

Consumers may be attempting to access medications that they have previously been prescribed. However, they face security threats as soon as they give their personal details to an illegitimate pharmacy. These sellers have poor security protections, with leaks of sensitive customer information all too common. Illegitimate online sellers may even outright sell consumer data to scammers. Moreover, these websites can trick unsuspecting consumers into downloading viruses which further risk personal property and information.

Counterfeit drugs, unauthorized data sharing, and cyber attacks are dangerous, but now, a new threat has emerged involving counterfeit letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Last week, the FDA released a press announcement alerting consumers to fraudulent warning letters claiming to be sent from the government. They advised that any consumer who received a warning message is likely the victim of a scam.

The July 2018 FDA press announcement is unique in that it is targeted directly to consumers. Commonly, these warning letters are used as a tool to inform the public about drug safety issues and are typically sent exclusively to manufacturers and companies creating products under their jurisdiction. FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb summarized the FDA’s policy, stating “we generally don’t take action against individuals for purchasing a medicine online, though we regularly take action against the owners and operators of illegal websites.”

What’s next for those that received a warning letter? The FDA requests that potential victims contact them with information, including pictures and scanned documents if possible, in an effort to help them investigate the scams. Consumers can use the email address FDAInternetPharmacyTaskForce-CDER@fda.hhs.gov as the primary channel for communicating with the agency about suspicious warnings.

The best way to avoid falling victim to any scam involving illegal internet pharmacies is to abstain from suspicious websites. How do you distinguish fake internet pharmacies from safe ones? The FDA offers guidance with their BeSafeRx campaign. Asking a few simple questions at the doctor’s office or calling a certified pharmacist can help consumers protect themselves. Safe online pharmacies usually offer information including address, contact information, and state license. Consumers should be wary if the pharmacy does not require prescriptions to access pharmaceutical drugs. Other warning signs include international addresses, clear spam messages, and unreasonably low prices.

####

Have more questions about fraud? NCL’s Fraud.org site has prevention tips, an outlet for consumer complaints, and an experienced fraud counselor to teach you how to avoid common scams. And for those wanting to learn more about proper medication consumption, our Script Your Future initiative has helpful advice and information so you can navigate your prescriptions with the utmost confidence.

Regulations Can Save Lives, Like Ted’s – National Consumers League

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Sarah Aillon, NCL internWritten by National Consumers League Intern Sarah Aillon

The Trump administration is waging war against regulations. In January, President Trump announced in his State of the Union address that “in our drive to make Washington accountable, we have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in history.” Since entering Office, the Trump administration rolled back many environmental, and economic regulations which secure the health, safety, and security of the American people. While the Trump Administration boastfully describes these rollbacks as progress, many public protection advocates have sounded their alarms.

Earlier this June, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and Georgetown Law organized a symposium which addressed the threat deregulation poses in the Trump era. Titled, The War on Regulation: Good for Corporations, Bad for the Public, the event featured a wide range of public protection advocates, including the mother of an accident victim, professors, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Their stories prove just how critical many regulations are for individual well-being and what happens when regulations do not monitor dangerous products.

Janet McGee, an advocate on the event’s second panel, and described the harrowing death of her 22-month-old son, Ted. In 2016, the toddler was in his room napping. When Janet went in to check on him, she found Ted under a dresser that had fallen on him. Ted was unresponsive and cold but had a faint heartbeat. McGee started CPR and then rushed him to the hospital. Tragically, the boy passed away four short hours after she first found him.

McGee’s story is not outstanding: every 17 minutes someone in the United States is injured by falling furniture, televisions or appliances. These furniture tip-overs kill a child every two weeks.

Voluntary safety standards in the American furniture industry perpetuate the high risk of furniture tip-overs. Voluntary safety standards threaten the consumer’s safety and security. A Consumer Reports investigation tested 24 dressers against the industry’s voluntary safety standards and found only six dressers met the industry’s standards. In response to their findings, Consumer Reports suggested raising the test weight for furniture tip-overs from 50 pounds to 60 pounds and to apply tests to dressers that are 30 inches high and higher. Anchoring dressers to walls with brackets and straps is an effective strategy to prevent the problem, but few consumers are aware of the need to secure their furniture from tip-overs.

Voluntary safety standards make enforcement of furniture safety difficult. Companies can pick and choose what standards they comply with. Voluntary safety standards allow product design to remain poor and increase the threat of injury and death.

The Ikea dresser responsible for the death of Janet McGee’s son did not meet safety standards. McGee’s Ikea dresser is not the only one from the company to fail their consumers. Over the course of 19 years, 8 children have died from Ikea dressers. As stated by McGee, the longstanding effects of furniture tip-over represent an industry-wide problem. However, with voluntary safety standards, little enforcement or change occurs.

Despite the danger many dressers on the market hold, little has been done to resolve the threat. Safety standards remain voluntary instead of mandatory. “Parents should worry about their children for many reasons, but furniture falling on them should not be one of them,” said McGee. Eventually, Ikea offered to take back 29 million chests and dressers in the Malm line, but very few consumers knew about the recall. Tens of millions of the Malm dressers are thought to still be in use and unsecured today.

McGee’s tragic, cautionary tale is just one example of why consumer regulations are necessary. President Trump’s focus on slashing regulations endanger everyday people, favoring big business at consumers’ expense. Regulatory safeguards enable people to live and work safely. “Strong government rules matter. We cannot, we must not accept a government that works only for a privileged few,” Warren said.

To learn more about furniture tip-over and Janet McGee’s story, click here.

___

Sarah Aillon is a rising senior at Dickinson College pursuing dual degrees in Political Science and History. She is passionate about the National Consumers League’s work and is a child labor policy intern with them this summer.

Endometriosis: In need of attention! – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

Zoe PharoZoe Pharo is a rising sophomore at Carleton College in Northfield, MN and is excited to be a health policy intern with the National Consumers League this summer.

Endometriosis is estimated to affect close to 200 million women worldwide, but we often hear very little about its prevalence.

 

On behalf of the National Consumers League, I attended a June 19 panel on endometriosis, hosted by the Society for Women’s Health Research. Panelists included Linda G. Griffiths, PhD, Professor of Biological and Mechanical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stacey Missmer, ScD, Scientific Director of the Boston Center for Endometriosis; and Robert N. Taylor, MD, PhD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Utah. The panel was moderated by the Society for Women’s Health Research’s President and CEO, Amy Miller, PhD.

What is endometriosis? 

Endometriosis is a condition where tissue that is typically only located inside the uterus is found elsewhere in the body. While it is estimated that close to 200 million women worldwide will experience endometriosis, we often hear little about its prevalence. Even as awareness of endometriosis increases—thanks to Lena Dunham and other celebrities sharing their struggles with the disease—numerous challenges still remain, including the following:

  • Many women face delays in diagnosis or misdiagnosis;
  • Funding for research has been slashed and continues to decrease under the Trump Administration;
  • Subtypes of the disease have yet to be identified;
  • Data on the prevalence of endometriosis does not exist; and
  • There is no standardized way to measure the amount of pain felt by women with endometriosis, often resulting in upsetting and discouraging interactions when women try to talk to their clinician, family members, colleagues, spouse, or others about their experiences.

What are the symptoms of endometriosis? 

Common symptoms of endometriosis include infertility, back and pelvic pain, digestive problems, painful sex, and painful menstrual cramps. The most visible symptoms of endometriosis are the lesions that often accompany the disease. However, there is no conclusive research on the relationship between lesions and pain or infertility. It is important to note that many women with endometriosis never present with any outwardly visible symptoms. Further, medical professionals do not have a standard way to measure pain. As Dr. Robert N. Taylor said, “Pain is a highly complex behavior” and is therefore hard to study and model.

Additionally, a patient diagnosed with endometriosis may present with comorbidities. Endometriosis has been found to lead to an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other autoimmune diseases.

Why the delay in diagnosis?

Diagnosis of endometriosis is delayed an average of six to seven years, partly because, as Dr. Taylor said, “American medicine has lagged behind in the teaching of sexuality.” Healthcare providers and women’s health advocates need to create spaces where women are comfortable discussing their sexual health and any painful symptoms that may point towards a diagnosis of endometriosis.

Even when women do discuss their symptoms, delayed diagnosis can be due to symptoms that overlap with other gynecologic and gastroenterological processes. For example, a common misdiagnosis is IBS. In addition, for many years, the only way to definitively diagnose endometriosis was by operating, using laparoscopy or excision. Surgical diagnoses come with risks, so we are beginning to move towards alternative methods that do not rely on such invasive procedures. However, even newer medical treatments, such as suppressing hormone production, can have negative consequences in young women.   

What can policymakers, healthcare providers, and advocates do?

Policymakers can appropriate additional funding for endometriosis research. First and foremost, endometriosis is an economic problem, representing an annual $69.4 billion economic burden in the United States. Despite this burden, funding for endometriosis is shrinking, at the same time that endometriosis is becoming more prevalent in the population.  

As Dr. Linda Griffiths pointed out, research on endometriosis is not what is funding many scientists’ careers. Dr. Griffiths described her research on endometriosis as a “hobby,” and advocated for more basic research on the biology of endometriosis and on potential subtypes of the disease. Future research should also look at selective groups that have yet to be studied. In addition, it is important to reconsider how to effectively judge pain. Currently there is no standard algorithm. This is troubling to Dr. Griffiths, as she recounted a time when she vomited from the intensity of her own endometriosis pain.  

Dr. Griffiths also recommended routine and accurate collection of data, which currently does not exist for endometriosis. We need to consistently measure the prevalence of endometriosis in various populations as well as the efficacy of potential treatments.  

Dr. Stacey Missmer recommended the implementation of policies to enable women to report their symptoms and be taken seriously when they do so. Electronic medical records might provide a way to alter clinician-patient interactions. Dr. Missmer said she envisions an electronic drop-down option for immediate entry, perhaps asking patients, “Are you experiencing pelvic pain?”

Finally, we need to talk openly about the physical and psychological effects of endometriosis. NCL is working closely with leading organizations in the women’s health space to consider the most effective ways to bring down barriers to better outcomes in women’s reproductive health.

Cancer death rate is falling, but we still have work to do – National Consumers League

/in /by

Janay JohnsonHave you or someone you love been affected by cancer? Chances are the answer is yes. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in men and women in the United States, and knows no boundaries of age, race, ethnicity, gender, or wealth. More than 1.7 million people will be diagnosed with the disease this year alone, while over 600,000 people are estimated to die from it.

Nonetheless, the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) new report, Cancer Statistics 2018, shows that the cancer death rate in the United States has maintained a steady rate of decline, plummeting 26 percent since its peak in 1991 – translating to 2.4 million fewer cancer deaths over the last quarter century. This progress is largely driven by sharp declines in mortality rates in the four most common types of cancer – lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate. Conjointly, innovations in cancer treatment, better early detection and management practices, and a societal reduction in tobacco use have also played a role in this statistical shift.

Despite this good news, ACS’ report also reveals that, though narrowing, disparities in cancer mortality rates with respect to gender, race, and age still exist. Fundamental differences in the types of cancers men and women develop, and higher rates of smoking, excess alcohol consumption, and other cancer-related factors in men have created a huge gender gap – with the death rate for men 40 percent higher than that of women. Racial disparities are even more pervasive. Though the overall racial disparity in cancer death rates is decreasing, blacks still have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial group in the United States for the majority of cancers. Black men have an overall cancer death rate 24 percent higher than that of white men, and in fact, have the highest death rate of any other group. Black women, despite having lower cancer incidence rates than white women, have a cancer death rate 14 percent higher than their white counterparts. Beyond that, the racial disparities for some cancers, notably breast, are actually increasing. When accounting for age, the disparity in the death rates of blacks and whites 65 and older is significantly smaller than the disparity in death rates of blacks and whites under 65 – which is likely attributable to a higher proportion of insured Americans in the Medicare population.

Socioeconomic disparities, reflecting a lack of access to health care, work opportunities, wealth, education, and social support networks, are at the root of many of the disparities in cancer mortality. These social determinants of health are all indicators of whether an individual might have access to cancer prevention resources, early detection, or quality cancer treatment. Lack of health insurance, or underinsurance creates a barrier to comprehensive healthcare and increases the likelihood of later stage cancer diagnosis, when treatment is often more intense, costly, and frankly less successful.

If we are to continue the progress we have made in lowering the death rate of this horrible disease, we must recognize that it is as inextricably linked to policy as it is to one day finding a cure. The National Consumers League continues to advocate to preserve the consumer protections established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including preventing discrimination based on preexisting conditions, ending annual and lifetime limits on essential health benefits, and removing co-pays for key cancer prevention and early detection services like mammograms and colonoscopies. NCL also advocates to protect Medicaid, which puts health coverage within reach for the most vulnerable and disenfranchised among us. We all have a critical role to play in saving lives from cancer – and it starts with promoting good health in our communities, ensuring every consumer has access to quality and affordable health care, and improving the quality of life for every consumer and their families.

Public breastfeeding legal but stigmatized – National Consumers League

/in , /by

Written by NCL Intern Trang Nguyen

Breastfeeding has long been hailed as the best source of food for infants, providing the perfect mix of nutrition in an easily digestible form and lowering the risk of certain syndromes, diseases, and allergies.

For the mother, breastfeeding reduces uterine bleeding after birth, lowers the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, and helps moms lose their pregnancy weight faster. With those significant advantages, it is no wonder that organizations dedicated to maternal and children’s health and wellness recommend breastfeeding exclusively for the first 6 months, and supplemented with other sources of nutrition for at least 12 months and up to 2 years of age and even beyond. Health experts estimate that if new mothers exclusively breastfeed for at least six months, the U.S. would save $13 billion in healthcare and other costs each year. With those incredible benefits, over the last 25 years, the Surgeons General of the United States have been calling for greater incentives to protect and promote breastfeeding. As a society, we need to do all we can to create an environment in which women feel safe and comfortable breastfeeding.

In the United States, 81.1 percent of mothers begin breastfeeding their babies at birth. Yet, only half of the babies are still breastfed at 6 months of age and roughly 30 percent by 12 months. The fall-off is understandable, given the sadly negative feelings too many Americans attach to breastfeeding in public – ALERT: breastfeeding mothers are just feeding their babies, not engaging in a sexual act! Sadly, many mothers are more likely to stop breastfeeding if it means they can socialize outside of the home without fear of hiding in public bathrooms to feed their children.

Breastfeeding should be welcomed and encouraged in public spaces. We need to encourage mothers to do what is best for their babies by making sure infants continue to be breastfed for the recommended optimal time period. It is a fundamental part of sustaining a new life. Indeed, most mothers make every effort to be discreet. Unfortunately, many mothers are still facing discrimination and harassment for breastfeeding in public.

State and federal laws are lacking in protecting breastfeeding mothers. While 49 states already recognize the importance of breastfeeding and have laws explicitly allowing women to breastfeed in any public and private location where the mother can legally be present (e.g., Massachusetts allows breastfeeding in any place open to the general public such as a park or theater), new moms’ rights are often violated when they are asked to stop or relocate, and they have no recourse. In recent years, there have been far too many incidents of breastfeeding mothers being asked to leave places like a Springfield church, Nordstrom bathroom, courtroom, Target store, and many others, despite the fact they were not doing anything illegal.

Furthermore, only 29 states exempt breastfeeding from public indecency, which means even in states that recognize mothers’ rights to nurse in public, they can still be prosecuted for public indecency. In 2003, Jacqueline Mercado was arrested and temporarily lost custody of her children because she was photographed breastfeeding her 1-year-old. She was prosecuted for “sexual performance of a child,” a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. It took her six months to get the charges dropped and resume her children’s custody. This incident happened in Texas, where “a mother [has been] entitled to breast-feed her baby in any location in which the mother is authorized to be” since 1995.

There are also countless examples of nursing mothers being asked to relocate despite the property having no policies against public breastfeeding. In 2013, Amber Hinds was asked by a lifeguard to relocate herself to the locker room when she was breastfeeding in the county pool. She later called the pool manager and found out they were aware of the Wyoming state law protecting a woman’s right to breastfeed and had no policy against breastfeeding.

Nursing mothers even have to put up with derogatory and humiliating comments from their colleagues and employers when they pump breastmilk in the workplace despite the protection of the law. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Section 4207 amended The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 (29 U.S. Code 207) to specify that a mother has the right to take reasonable break time to express breast milk at work for one year after childbirth. Employers must also provide a private space, other than a toilet stall, for that employee to express breast milk. In spite of the benefits nursing has to businesses, including reducing the time a mother may miss work because of baby-related illnesses and encouraging her to come back to work earlier after birth because she is less concern about the effect it would have on the nursing relationship, we still hear heartbreaking stories of how nursing employees are not supported in the workplace. The Washington Post recently shared tales of how women have to pump milk in ant and roach-infested storage rooms, or have the CEO announce everyone of her pumping by playing Joe Budden’s Pump It Up. Under such stress and lack of support, many working mothers, like officer Victoria Clark, had no other choice but to stop breastfeeding altogether.

Incidents like this show that there is still much to do to protect the rights of nursing mothers. States need to revise their laws, adding legal remedies and removing public breastfeeding from the public indecency list. Meanwhile, public accommodations need to better train their staffs on policies and state laws that protect the rights of mothers to breastfeed in public. Even if this is merely a mistake on the staff’s part, and does not reflect the view of the property or the managing board, it can still leave detrimental consequences for new and inexperienced mothers. Mothers who have been yelled at or singled out in public might feel ashamed of breastfeeding in public and might abandon doing so altogether. Overall, we need to improve the public’s perception of breastfeeding so that nursing mothers will not have to go through emotional stress and abuse to feed their children.

As many women and men continue to fight for the right to breastfeed in public, mothers might equip themselves by better understanding state laws on public breastfeeding at https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx and feeling empowered to state their right to be free of any harassment or discrimination they might face for breastfeeding in public. Even if the law has no enforcement mechanism, it is helpful for breastfeeding mothers to cite their rights when making complaints, calling for support, or contacting legislators.

Health savings accounts: dubious benefits for the wealthy, disastrous for the rest of us – National Consumers League

/in , /by

Spotlight on Health Care Series, Part 3: As America’s health care system is facing uncertainty, NCL staff is exploring the topic in a new weekly blog series.

The failure to successfully repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if nothing else, exposed a Republican party divided (perhaps irreparably so) on how to reform America’s healthcare system. Despite the GOP’s devastating legislative defeat, we should not underestimate their determination to resuscitate their repeal/replace efforts. 

It’s clear there aren’t too many things the party as a whole agrees on these days, particularly surrounding healthcare, but there are a few ideas that are likely to re-appear in future attempts at healthcare reform. One of those ideas is the expansion of health savings accounts (HSAs). The American Health Care Act (AHCA) was a huge endorsement of HSAs, expanding Americans’ latitude to use them as a primary means to cover their health expenses. 

Under current law, HSAs are married to high deductible health insurance plans (HDHPs). HSAs supplement HDHPs by allowing consumers to set aside funds to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Despite the high deductible, HDHPs are attractive to many consumers as premiums are typically much lower than those of traditional plans. Another draw of HSAs is the tax advantage; the money you contribute is untaxed, the money grows tax-free, and you pay no taxes if/when you take the money out, as long as it’s used on health expenses. Even so, the long-term benefits of HSA-driven healthcare are dubious at best, even for the wealthy who can afford to take full advantage of these accounts. For the rest of us, it could be a disaster.

The healthcare landscape in a system dominated by HSA supplemented-high deductible health plans would be drastically different than that under the Affordable Care Act. The ACA was designed to ensure healthcare for all Americans- and not just access to care, but quality health coverage. The law requires that insurers cover a wide range of benefits, from preventive services to maternity coverage to mental health. Republicans argue that mandating these benefits drives up costs, so they propose skinnier benefit packages to lower premiums and increase “access.” Proponents of HSAs submit that putting more of consumers’ skin in the game will compel them to shop for cheaper care since they are spending their own money rather than an insurer’s. The idea is that this will drive down health care costs, all while bolstering competition in the marketplace and increasing consumers’ flexibility to choose the care they want. Too bad this lofty goal isn’t bound to reality. 

The fact of the matter is that HSAs have not been and will not be a feasible means to achieving health care for all. HSAs tend to benefit the wealthy, as those with lower incomes often have minimal, if any, disposable income to set aside in a savings account. In fact, a 2015 study found that people from high-income households were not only significantly more likely to have an HSA, but more likely to max out their contributions than people from low-income households. Considering that nearly half of Americans can’t come up with $400 to cover an emergency expense, we can hardly expect most Americans to have the ability to come up with cash to meet a high deductible. Even the wealthiest among us could go broke should a costly medical emergency occur. Moreover, the idea that HSAs afford consumers more flexibility is misleading — the real flexibility most Americans will have is deciding which health services they will have to forego. Studies have shown that even those who are able to contribute nominally to their accounts ultimately reduce the amount of care they seek, rather than shopping around for cheaper prices. Patients especially avoid things like filling their prescriptions, or proactively seeking preventive care that can mitigate health risks down the line. While the primary goal of the Republicans may be to reduce health care costs, we cannot sacrifice the well-being of the American people in those efforts.

President Trump called on Congress to create a “better healthcare system for all Americans,” however much of what he and his party have put forth only creates a better system for a fortunate few. HSAs are most valuable to those who earn the most and have the most to gain – it is not a solution that works for everyone. We cannot stand for higher cost burdens and coverage cuts across the board, only to give another tax break to the wealthy, and we must not let the Republicans shift us towards a system that will leave millions of low-income and middle-class Americans behind. While the future healthcare landscape is anything but certain, we would all be well served to stay clear-sighted about what could still lie ahead.

Fighting penny soda tax gets pricey – National Consumers League

/in , /by

Sally GreenbergEditor’s note: The measures discussed in this piece were approved on Election Day, 2016.

It’s hard to believe that corporate America would throw so much money fighting a penny-per-ounce tax on sodas, but that is exactly what’s happening in San Francisco and Oakland. The soft drink industry has thrown $50 million in efforts to fight this tax on sugar-sweetened drinks.

Sweetened beverages have been tied to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay. Public health experts see measures to raise prices as a way to drive down consumption, which is the last thing Big Soda would want to promote.

These soda tax measures are proliferating. In June, Philadelphia adopted a soda tax, beating back a $10 million industry campaign petitioning it. Berkeley, CA passed its own tax two years ago. Boulder, CO is voting on a 2 cent tax today, and three California cities (San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany) will also have a sugary drink tax on the ballot. This is all happening as consumption of soda is slipping nationally.

These measures are similar: they would impose a tax of a penny per ounce on any drink with added sweetener, including soft drinks, iced teas, and smoothies. The taxes would be imposed on beverage distributors, not at checkout. Evidence from current soda taxes suggests price increases will be passed through to retailers, and, according to the New York Times, the price of a 2-liter bottle might increase 67 cents and a 12-pack of sodas would go up $1.44.

If the soda tax can achieve its dual goal: reducing consumption of sweetened drinks and using the proceeds for community and health initiatives, then this will be a success. NCL supports these efforts, and we wait eagerly to see whether both of these laudable goals will be achieved.

Preventive care benefits: Your health plan’s best kept secret – National Consumers League

/in , , /by

SG-headshot.jpg

To those who may question the necessity of health insurance, I have two words for you: Preventive care. Seven out of ten deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases, many of which are preventable. Preventive health services like physicals, immunizations and other screenings can help find health problems early, when the chances for treatment and cure are better, or even prevent health problems before they start. 

Preventive health services are covered under all health insurance plans with no additional out-of-pocket costs when provided by in-network providers. Your health insurance plan may cover even more services that cost you nothing – to find out more, be sure to contact your health plan.

Unfortunately, many consumers with health insurance don’t take advantage of these services – simply because they don’t know their insurance covers it.  That’s a problem we’re working hard to resolve.

Below we list some of the preventive care benefits available through your health plan: 

For adults:

Immunizations (Vaccines)

It is important for adults to stay up to date on their immunizations.  They can save your life and save your health.  Through your health plan, vaccines for diseases such as chicken pox, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis, hepatitis A & B, and the flu are all covered. 

Depression screenings

Too many people suffer from mental health conditions, such as depression, and the consequences can be devastating on individuals and families alike. Taking a depression screening is one of the most efficient and effective ways to determine whether you are experiencing symptoms of depression and get you on the path to treatment. Depression screenings are fully covered by your health plan. 

Cancer screenings

Nearly everyone has felt the impact of cancer – either themselves or a friend or loved one.  Screenings are one of the most powerful weapons against cancer. When many cancers are found early, chances of survival increase exponentially. Important preventive cancer screenings include cervical cancer screening, breast cancer mammography screening, and colorectal cancer screening. Lung cancer screening is also covered for adults aged 55-80 who are current smokers or have quit smoking in the last 15 years. 

For women:

Well-woman visits

Well-woman visits are key to women’s health and help identify health concerns before they become life-threatening. These visits usually include your annual physical examination, as well as any necessary screenings (such as pap tests, blood pressure and cholesterol screenings), evaluations, counseling, and immunizations based on your age and risk factors. 

Services for pregnant women or women who may become pregnant

In addition to the preventive services available to all women, there is also a list of services available for mothers-to-be. Breastfeeding support and counseling, gestational diabetes screenings, anemia screenings, and even folic acid supplements for women who may become pregnant are all covered under your health plan – at no additional cost to you. 

For children:

Autism screenings

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children are screened for autism at their 18- and 24-month well-child visits. This type of screening can quickly identify children with developmental and behavioral challenges when early treatment may be most effective. 

Vision screenings

Good vision is essential to a child’s development, success, and overall well-being. Their vision should be checked when they are first born, while they are a baby, and through their preschool and school years. If problems with a child’s vision are not detected early, their vision may become limited in ways that cannot be rectified later in life. And it can also affect school performance and learning.  But with early detection, it is usually possible to treat vision problems effectively. Thankfully, vision screenings for all children are covered through your health plan. 

Be on the lookout for new resources from the National Consumers League (NCL) and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) to help consumers get the most out of their health insurance benefits.