political

The Affordable Care Act– Did you know this?

Read:

“Obamacare has also had some important indirect consequences. According to Catherine Dower of the Center for the Health Professions at the University of California at San Francisco, since the Affordable Care Act states have become more aggressive about challenging some of the protectionist laws that prevent well-qualified medical professionals — pharmacists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, emergency medical technicians — from offering some kinds of primary care. California just passed a law that will allow pharmacists to check your blood pressure and cholesterol level and to dispense prescription birth control and anti smoking drugs. Letting pharmacists perform services that don’t require seven years of medical training makes those services cheaper and more convenient, increasing the chances consumers will take better care of themselves.” The New York Times.

Some estimate the above process will result in saving nearly twenty million dollars in health care costs. It’s shame Republican Governors are not participating. They are hurting the people in their states.

 

The Affordable Care Act—Jobs and Costs

 

 

         The Affordable Care Act – Jobs and Costs

 

    This paper attempts to consolidate various nonpartisan reports regarding the impact of the Affordable Care Act in regards to jobs and costs. We will make every attempt to update the paper on a routine basis in order to keep our readers informed. In each case, we have included a link to the entire report, study, or article. Secondary links to sources are not always provided but can be obtained through the main link we provide.

Florida

Questions about the Affordable Care Act? Head to Ruskin presentations

By KEVIN BRADY

Confused about the Affordable Care Act? Michael Van Hoek is your man.

Van Hoek, and thousands like him, are fanning out across the country this month to explain the new healthcare regulations. LINK

Minnesota

 

Minnesota likely to avoid states’ budget shock from ACA’s ‘welcome mat’ effect

by Elizabeth Stawicki, Minnesota Public Radio

June 28, 2013

    

 

 

Mississippi

 

Expanding Medicaid will generate over 9,000 new jobsacross Mississippi by the year 2020. This investment in health care will create more new jobs in Mississippi than Nissan and Toyota.

combined. http://msroadtoreform.org/health-care-reform/mississippi/medicaid

New Mexico

Impacts of Obamacare on New Mexico’s indigent healthcare programs still unclear

By Stella Davis  currentargus

 

 

 

 

Ohio

According to the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, by 2015 Medicaid expansion will create at least 23,000 new Ohio jobs in health care and other related industries, increase the earnings of Ohio residents by at least $16.7 billion, and increase the state’s total economic activity by at least $18.6 billion from 2014 to 2022. In fact, costs to employers could total $876 million to $1.3 billion in the states that oppose, are leaning against, or remain undecided on expansion as the result of penalties for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act. LINK http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2013/04/02/58922/10-frequently-asked-questions-about-medicaid-expansion/

 

Nebraska

According to an independent study by the University of Nebraska Medical Center,

spending by the federal government on Medica

id expansion would generate at least $700 million in new economic activity every year in Nebraska, which could

finance over 10,000 jobs each year through 2020.  http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/NASMHPDMedicaidExpansionReportFinal.pdf

 

 

General

 

If individual governors and state legislatures do not choose to participate in the new

Medicaid expansion program, foregoing the substantial federal funds associated with expansion, their states will in effect have significant lost opportunities to reduce their budget deficits and increase economic activity. States that do not participate will lose new revenues coming into their states, and at the same time, will see their tax dollars

flow to states that chose to opt in to the new expansion program. The states that opt in

will then benefit in budget and revenue gains, with little accruing to the non-participating

states. In other words, if the state chooses to opt out, citizens would be contributing

federal tax dollarsto a program their constituents would never benefit from.   http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/NASMHPDMedicaidExpansionReportFinal.pdf



The key finding is that Medicaid spending generates economic activity including jobs,
 income and state tax revenues at the state level. Medicaid’s economic impact is 
intensified because of federal matching dollars –state spending pulls federal dollars
 into the economy. Medicaid funding supports jobs and generates income within the
 health care sector and other sectors of the economy due to a major “multiplier effect.” 

 


Massachusetts Shows That Expanding Coverage Reduces Costs

Massachusetts’ experience with its health reform effort offers strong evidence 
that expanding  coverage under a comprehensive health reform plan can lead to
 sizeable reductions in state costs for uncompensated care.
Massachusetts enacted legislation in 2006 to provide nearly universal health care
 coverage. The legislation combined a Medicaid expansion with subsidies to help 
lower-and moderate-income residents purchase insurance, an employer responsibility 
requirement, and a requirement for individuals to obtain coverage. All of these also are
 core elements of the ACA.

Expanding affordable health insurance options and instituting an individual mandate significantly decreased spending on uncompensated care in Massachusetts. The state replaced its Uncompensated
Care Pool (also known as “Free Care”) with the Health Safety Net, which provides
financial support to public hospitals and community health centers that serve
lower-income residents who are uninsured or underinsured
or who have significant medicalneeds.

In 2008, the first full year of health reform implementation, Health
Safety Net payments were
$252 million, or 38 percent lessthan the previous year’s Uncompensated Care Pool payments. This reduction in uncompensated care costs coincided with a decline in the share of residents who are uninsured. Only 2.7 percent of residents were uninsured in 2009, compared to
5.7 percent in 2007.

 Page- 19-   LINK –The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD)

 Source: 
 Alan G. Raymond, “

 Massachusetts Health Reform: A Five-Year Progress Report”

 Foundation of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, 
 2012

 

The Affordable Care Act and Jobs– Just the Facts

Republicans typically state the The Affordable Care Act is a job killer. Their job killer claims is the most significant reason for eliminating the law.

We have culled the internet and provide a list of statements by non-partisan sources. In each case we provide a link to the source.

From: cnn.com

As of 2010, 97% of small businesses had fewer than 50 employees, according to the U.S. Census. That means Obamacare’s employer mandate applies only to 3% of America’s small businesses. Of companies with more than 50 workers, 96% already offer health plans, government data shows.

The ADP jobs survey — one of the largest surveys of private employers — shows that small businesses are still hiring strong.

“There is little evidence that fiscal austerity and Health Care Reform have had a significant impact on the job market,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics and a collaborator on the ADP report, in a press release with the August survey.

The case for hurting job growth: Uncertainty was the big reason economists gave for why employers might not be hiring — uncertainty over how much it’s going to cost to insure additional workers, and how much health care premiums for existing employees might go up. LINK

Center For Economic And Policy

This report may be long but well worth the read

Is the Affordable Care Act a Hidden Jobs Killer?

Print
Written by Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker
Wednesday, 24 July 2013 12:40
 
Opponents of the ACA have labeled the health care bill a “jobs killer.” It is unlikely,
 however, that the bill could have much impact on employment except among the relatively
 small number of firms that are near the 50-worker cutoff.  In a post for the 
Roosevelt Institute's Econobytes, economists Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker respond
 to the claim that firms will reduce the number of hours per week that employees work
 to below thirty so that they fall under the cutoff, thereby incurring a penalty 
under the ACA:

An analysis of data from the Current Population Survey shows that only a small number

(0.6 percent of the workforce) of workers report working just below the 30 hour cutoff in the range

of 26-29 hours per week. Furthermore, the number of workers who fall in this category was actually lower

in 2013 than in 2012, the year before the sanctions would have applied. This suggests that employers do

not appear to be changing hours in large numbers in response to the sanctions in the ACA.

There have been numerous accounts of employers claiming to reduce employment or adjust hours in order

to avoid the obligations of the ACA.

  • If this is the case, we should have first begun to see evidence of the impact of ACA in January
  • of 2013, since under the original law employment in 2013 would serve as the basis for assessing
  • penalties in 2014.
  • The Obama administration announced on July 2, 2013 that they would not enforce sanctions in
  • 2014 based on 2013 employment, but employers would not have known that sanctions would not
  • be enforced prior to this date. Therefore we can assume that they would have behaved as though
  • they expect to be subject to the sanctions and acted accordingly.

Reducing average hours of work below 30 per week, could plausibly have an impact on employment

patterns, but the data do not indicate that this is happening.

  • Several large employers have claimed that they would deliberately keep workers’ hours below
  • 30 hours per week in order to avoid having them count toward the number for whom they would
  • have a $2,000 penalty.
  • Some surveys of small businesses also report that employers intend to reduce workers’ hours to
  • avoid the penalty, even they are not bound by the law.
  • Fortunately, it is possible to test whether employers are actually reducing hours below the
  • 30-hour threshold.
  • The Current Population Survey (CPS) provides monthly data on workers usual weekly hours.
  • We used the CPS to compare the first four months of 2013 with the first four months of 2012.
  • We looked at the numbers and percent of workers who reported working 26-29 hours a week.
  • We considered this range a reasonable cutoff for an ACA effect. Presumably if an employer would
  • have a worker put in more than 30 hours a week in the absence of ACA penalties, they would require
  • a worker to put in close to, but less than, 30 hours in order to avoid the penalties.

Table 1 shows the results.

jobs-killer-table1-2013-07

 

 

 

 

 

There are two points that are striking. First, a very small share of the workforce falls into this group.

  • Well under 1 million workers, roughly 0.6 percent of the labor force, typically work between
  • 26-29 hours a week.
  • It is also important to remember that many of these workers choose to work less than a full-time job.
  • More than two-thirds of the workers who report working less than full-time jobs say that they are doing
  • so by choice.
  • If this ratio also applies to the workers who usually work between 26-29 hours it would mean that less
  • than 300,000 workers, or roughly 0.2 percent of the workforce, are working this number of hours as a
  • result of their employer’s decision.

The other striking aspect to the data in Table 1 is that the number and percentage of workers putting in between

26-29 hours per week was slightly lower in 2013 than in 2012.

  • The average percentage of workers in this category for 2013 was 0.597 percent.
  • That is down from 0.604 percent in 2012.
  • While this drop is not close to being statistically significant, the change is in the wrong direction for the
  • ACA as job-killer story.

While there may certainly be instances of individual employers carrying through with threats to reduce their

employees’ hours to below 30 to avoid the sanctions in the ACA, the numbers are too small to show up in the data.

  • It appears that in setting worker hours employers are responding to business considerations in much
  • the same way as they did before the ACA took effect.
  • While the sanctions in the ACA may provide some marginal incentive to reduce worker hours below the
  • 30-hour cutoff, other considerations in setting worker hours appear to be far more important.

Jimmy Kemmel- Obamacare VS The Affordable Care Act

Well, it’s obvious the Republicans have done a great job at distorting the truth regarding The Affordable Care Act- Or is it Obamacare?

A Jimmel Video

 

Why the University of Miami Should Not Receive any More Penalities

Mark Emmert-NCAA Executive Director

Mark Emmert-NCAA Executive Director

On February 5, 2013 we stated the paragraph below related to the University of Miami, NCAA investigation.

“Depending on how you view the situation, the current NCAA investigation of allegations against the University of Miami has impacted three recruiting classes. In November 2012, we reported between 8 to 17 players chose other schools over the University of Miami due to impending sanctions. We can now more accurately state that between 11 to 18 players made decisions to attend schools other than Miami due to pending sanctions. Coaches tell us the cloud hanging over Miami is constantly used aganist them by other schools. FSU’s Jimbo Fisher is specifically mentioned as one who points out the NCAA investigation to recruits considering Miami.” Entire Article

On September 24, 2013 Greg Cote, Wrote the following in a Miami Herald article: if you’ll forgive an estimate and a rounded number for dramatic effect, let’s just go ahead and call it “1,000 Days of Hell” now — and counting — for University of Miami athletics in the bumbling hands of the ponderous NCAA. Article

A few months ago we learned that Keith Bryant, a Rivals four star defensive tackle from Delray Beach, Florida, was persuaded to attend Florida State, because of of impending sanctions against the University of Miami.  While we attempted to speak with Mr. Bryant, who did not return phone calls, we were able to make contact with a few of his friends and Delray Beach teammates. Of the five people we spoke to, there was one common theme. Florida State coaches routinely stated they had inside information and that Miami would receive additional penalties, including more post season bowl bans and get hit hard with scholarship reductions. One coach continually threw-out the thought that the scholarship situation would keep Miami down for at least the next five years.

Bryant who leaned toward Miami at one point bought into the comments. And according to a family friend, so did other recruits.
We have adjusted the February estimate ans now believe 14 to 19 players went elsewhere due to pending sanctions and penalties. Considering, the University Miami has self-imposed not attending three postseason games, endured a sloppy unethical investigation by the NCAA, and lost players due to the length of the investigation, they should not receive any additional sanctions or penalties.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/24/3646507/greg-cote-um-helpless-in-ncaas.html#storylink=cpy