Question? Call us at 800-207-8001 | Sign In | Learn About Membership
Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as his running mate has brought his Medicare reform proposal to the front of the presidential campaign. Polling in February suggested that while Americans strongly prefer the Medicare status quo, they also know little about the details of what premium support means or how it would work. Does the Ryan selection mean either of those things will change by election day?
The International Aids Conference is back in the United States for the first time in more than 20 years, with a star-studded cast that includes top U.S. health officials, former presidents, philanthropists, and public health officials from around the world. Recent years have seen major strides in the prevention and treatment of AIDS around the world, but challenges remain, including declining financial support, according to a recent UNAIDS report.
What do you see as the key successes of the global fight against AIDS? What future challenges most concern you?
So the Court has spoken. We can now end all the speculating and vague worrying about what the Supreme Court might or might not do to the health reform law. A majority of the Court said that the controversial individual mandate can stand but that the law's expansion of Medicaid must now be optional for the states. So now that the legal fight is through, what do you see as the biggest challenges and opportunities for health reform forward? Will there be successful efforts to repeal or reform the Affordable Care Act? Will the Health and Human Services department release all the necessary regulations in time? What will happen if states opt out of the Medicaid expansion? Will the president turn the corner on selli
The countdown to the Supreme Court's decision in the health care case is on. Chief Justice John Roberts said Monday that the justices would be issuing rulings in the remaining cases on Thursday, which means, barring some extraordinary circumstance, that we will know then whether the Affordable Care Act will stand, fall, or move forward in some partial form.
The health care law would usher in a large reorganization of how many Americans get health insurance and of how Medicare pays providers for the care they offer seniors. In many important ways, the future of health care in this country will depend on what the Court decides. But in the two years since the law passed, insurers, providers and state governments have already begun making big changes. Which of those changes do you think will live on, regardless of the future of the health care law?
On Monday, the health insurer UnitedHealthCare announced that it will be preserving several consumer protections now required by the Affordable Care Act, regardless of what the Supreme Court opts to do about the health reform law. Even if the law is overturned, United will keep covering young adults on their parents' plans, offer preventive benefits with no copayment, and write all policies without lifetime limits, among other provisions. The company did not embrace every consumer protection imposed in the law, but did include many popular reforms that have already been enacted.
Do you think other insurers will follow United's lead? Do you think that these changes are here to stay, regardless of what the Courts or Congress do?
A rumor that the Supreme Court might rule on the health care case last week turned out to be just that. But, with the Court's decision drawing near, members of Congress have begun thinking about how they will react should the Court overturn the sprawling health care law. In the House, which has repeatedly voted to repeal the law, leadership says it remains committed to complete eradication, but some members have begun talking about the possibility of restoring some popular provisions.
If the Court overturns the law, what, if anything, should the Congress do next? What do you think they will do?
President Obama's budget proposal Monday was tough on the health care sector, which enjoyed none of the big-bucks proposals he offered in energy and infrastructure. The president repeated calls for some seniors for some seniors to pay more into Medicare, proposed deep cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and would trim expenses at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. But he also proposed some new health care money--for primary care doctors, for Alzheimer's research, for administration at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and for improved food and drug inspections in China.
Did the president's approach strike the right balance?
It's been a busy end of the health care year--with the "doc fix" endgame, the departure of CMS director Dr. Don Berwick, the debut of Pioneer ACOs, rules for essential health benefits, calls to privatize Medicare, and controversial decisions about contraceptive coverage, among many other matters. There's plenty on the horizon too. If you ran the show at the Department of Health and Human Services, what would be your number one priority for the coming year? What should Secretary Kathleen Sebelius set down as her New Year's resolution?
It's been a long road for the emergency contraceptive pill called Plan B. Its maker, the generic manufacturer Teva, has been trying to get the drug available over-the-counter for buyers of all ages for years. It was stopped by the FDA under the Bush administration, in a decision that prompted resignations and a federal court case.
The Obama administration FDA considered a similar application and was poised to make an opposite decision. A scientific panel and the FDA's commissioner had determined that the drug would be safe for women and girls of all ages to purchase and use without a doctor's prescription. But last week, Sebelius overruled the agency's final decision, arguing that there was not adequate research showing that the youngest girls who might need it - girls as young as 11 -- would be able to read and understand the medication labels. As a result, Plan B will remain prescription-only for girls under 17, and those 17 and older will have to show ID to a pharmacist to buy it. Several commentators have
The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale released a report Monday showing children and teenagers remain a big target for soft drink ads. Researchers at the center say their findings show the federal government should do more to regulate the marketing of soda and other unhealthy foods.
Most U.S. children get more than their daily recommended total of sugar in soda, fruit punch, energy drinks and other sugary beverages, something the Rudd Center researchers say contributes to the rising rates of childhood obesity. The beverage industry says it's been unfairly singled out, arguing that sweetened drinks are just one of many sources of calories in the American diet and it should not be blamed for the obesity epidemic.
The food industry has put into place some voluntary guidelines to limit advertising of sweet drinks to children. But the Rudd report suggests that kids are still seeing more ads than they were before the industry's self-
The “agree” function has been temporarily disabled from the blog while we transition to a new system. The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.