insurance – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

How Insurers are Covering COVID-19

David Posnett — Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:21:22 +0000

Updated April 3, 2020 • By Samantha Liss

Insurers are weighing how best to respond to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus as cases swell in the U.S. Here is a tracker to follow the latest policy and coverage decisions from the nation’s largest insurers.

The nation’s health insurers are responding to the coronavirus pandemic with changes to coverage associated with COVID-19 as the number of cases continues to swell across the U.S.

The biggest payers have said they will waive patient cost-sharing — copays, coinsurance and deductibles — for testing. Although some, such as Cigna and Humana, have gone farther by eliminating cost-sharing for all COVID-19 treatment.

In addition to coverage decisions, insurers are weighing the ways they can reduce administrative barriers to promote quicker access to care for those infected with the novel coronavirus. All are cutting back on prior authorization in various ways to ease access to care.

Hospitals say that’s not enough, and are calling on the biggest payers to follow actions taken by Congress and CMS to help resolve cash flow issues, by accelerating payments or opting into releasing interim periodic payments. The American Hospital Association also is urging payers to eliminate administrative burdens such as prior authorizations.

“This crisis is challenging for all of us, and everyone has a role to play,” AHA said in its letter to the nation’s largest insurers. “You could make a significant difference in whether a hospital or health system keeps their doors open during this critical time.”

Despite the policy changes by payers, employers with self-funded plans can opt out of these policies. A majority of workers are covered by self-insured plans, which essentially allow employers to decide coverage decisions given they’re paying for the claims and having insurers simply perform administrative services.

Below is a tracker with the latest coverage decisions for the nation’s largest insurers.

UPDATED 4/3/2020

The BCBSA is eliminating cost-sharing for COVID-19 diagnostic testing. It will also waive cost-sharing for treatment at in-network or Medciare rates through May 31, including inpatient stays.

BCBSA will remove prior authorization requirements for testing and for services that are medically necessary to treat an infected patient. BCBSA also is waiving limits on early refills to make it easier to access medications and expanding access to telehealth services.

UPDATED 4/3/2020

Molina is halting cost-sharing for testing and treatment. That policy applies to Medicare, Medicaid and marketplace members nationwide.

UPDATED 4/2/2020

Aetna will waive cost-sharing for certain members admitted to an in-network hospital with COVID-19 or complications from the disease. The policy applies to all of Aetna’s commercial plans, though self-insured members can opt out. The policy will apply to admissions through June 1. Aetna also is waiving cost-sharing for testing and associated visits, including telehealth.

Aetna also is attempting to make access to hospitalization faster for those with COVID-19 by easing prior authorization requirements, particularly in areas hard hit by the outbreak like New York and Washington.

UPDATED 4/2/2020

The nation’s second largest commercial insurer will waive cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment and will reimburse providers at either in-network or Medicare rates through May 31. The policy applies to Anthem’s fully insured, individual, Medicaid and Medicare Advantage members. Self-insured plans can opt out. Anthem also is waiving cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing and in-network visits associated with testing whether it’s conducted at a physician’s office, urgent care or ER.

Anthem also is easing its limits on early refills for 30-day prescriptions. Anthem said it would waive cost sharing for telehealth visits, including those for mental health for a period of 90 days starting March 17. Self-insured plans have the option to opt in the new virtual care policy.

UPDATED 4/2/2020

Centene will waive cost-sharing for COVID-19 related screening, testing and treatment for its Medicaid, Medicare and Marketplace members through June 30.

Centene also will eliminate prior authorization requirements for care for all its Medicare, Medicaid and Marketplace members. The company is also working to supply federally qualified health centers with personal protective equipment and assistance in providing small business loans to behavioral health providers and long-term service support organizations.

UPDATED 4/2/2020

Cigna will waive cost-sharing for all COVID-19 treatment, including testing and telehealth screenings through May 31. The policy applies to Cigna’s fully-insured group plans, individual coverage and Medicare Advantage plans. Self-insured plans can opt out.

Cigna will reimburse providers either at in-network or Medicare rates depending on the member. Cigna also is easing access to maintenance medication by offering free shipping for a 90-day supply. Cigna is easing prior authorization requirements for patients being discharged from the hospital to post-acure stays.

Humana

UPDATED 4/2/2020

Humana is waiving cost-sharing for testing and treatment, including hospital admissions for COVID-19 cases. The policy applies to its Medicare Advantage plans, fully-insured commercial plans, Medicare supplement and its Medicaid plans. The policy is indefinite with no current end date. Cost-sharing will be waived for all telehealth visits and members can opt to refill prescriptions early.

Humana also is easing administrative barriers to allow infected patients to easily move from a hospital to post-acute care settings. It’s suspending prior authorization and referral requirements and requesting notification within 24 hours. It’s also implementing an expedited claims process to reimburse providers faster, Humana said.

UPDATED 4/2/2020

The nation’s largest commercial insurer, will waive cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment through May 31. The policy applies to its fully-insured commercial, Medicare Advantage and Medicaid plans. United also is waiving cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing at approved locations in accordance with Centers for Disease Control guidelines. There will be no cost-sharing for visits related to testing including at physician offices, urgent care, ERs and telehealth visits. The policy applies to United’s commercial, Medicare Advantage and Medicaid members.

UnitedHealthcare is opening a special enrollment period for some of its commercial members who opted out of coverage during the traditional enrollment period with their employers. This enrollment period will end April 6. The insurer also is easing prior authorization requirements through May 31, suspending prior approval for post-acute care and switching to a new provider.

Our Healthcare System will Change (Like it or Not)

David Posnett — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 01:44:40 +0000

Submitted by John Hooker

In reply to a recent laudable post “Drug Prices: How Pharma Games the System,” I have this to add.

To gather momentum to change our system we should be relentless in emphasizing the cost that affects patients directly.

There is one major fallacy of our healthcare system. We chose to link healthcare insurance to employment in the years following World War II. In contrast, at that same time, Europeans chose to provide health care as a right for all (Universal Healthcare). Their countries chose different systems (some public and some private), but the underlying intent was always to insure everyone in the country, because that is how a successful insurance system works.

Healthcare obtained through your employer was our original sin. It never insured more than 70% of the population, and it actually took over our rights to choose and in stead put our employers in charge.

As per “Drug Prices: How Pharma Games the System,” Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices. Pharmaceutical prices are still unregulated. Worse, Medicare is hamstrung by administrative rules that tend to increase fraud or waste. As we all know, that led to claims that anything government puts “its hands on” cannot work.

But the reality is that Medicare was engineered to be inefficient and to maximize profits for our private health care industry.

However, recent talk about healthcare is raising factual awareness and creating a platform for campaigns. Excessive patenting to extend branded product life, as described in “Drug Prices: How Pharma Games the System,” is only one aspect of the problem.

Most important is to remind ourselves that American pharmaceutical companies are free to charge whatever they want, whether the product is on or off-patent! Even if the drug is 30+ years old! That is outrageous.

Another point related to messaging: We should stop reminding the younger generations that health care costs are rising and implying they are being made to pay the bill for the costly care of older Americans via higher healthcare premiums. What no one seems to get, is that this is how insurance works! If you are a very careful car driver and never have an accident you are still paying insurance and this “covers” the expenses of the insurance company when others submit claims. In contrast to auto-insurance where higher premiums due to accident prone driving make some sense, health issues are often unrelated to negligent behavior. Even if you think that those who smoke, drink, or have unprotected sex with multiple partners, should be made to pay higher healthcare premiums, consider this. In our immediate future, say in 10-20 years, everyone will get a full sequence of their genetic profile. This means that you, your doctors and perhaps even your health insurance, will know the details of which diseases you are prone to get in the future.

Will you get a heart attack with 10% chance or with a 90% chance? Will you get hypertension? Will you have a stroke? Will you have diabetes? Will you get any number of different cancers? Thanks to Angelina Jolie and other celebrities, everyone already knows about BRCA gene mutations and the high risk for breast cancer and ovarian cancer that they impart. Within a few decades there will be thousands of such cancer genes. You can bet that private for-profit health insurance companies would love to get your genetic profile and charge you insurance rates accordingly.

The ONLY way to “overcome the inequity of nature” is to adopt the widest healthcare insurance pool possible, distribute the risk, and lower premiums for everyone.

It is time to debunk healthcare insurance through employment. It increases the lack of transparency. It decreases control for the individual. It is unmanageable in its current form and it is getting worse.

Experts predict that the expanded use of genomics will eventually afford predictability of disease for the entire population. This is the “holy grail” for healthcare providers. It is also the right time to dramatically change our healthcare insurance system.

If not politics, science may compel us to accept Medicare for all.

Let’s simplify and make good.

John Hooker is an International Medical Communications Consultant with 36 years of experience working with Big Pharma.

The Senate Health Reform Bill Slashes Medicaid Severely

David Posnett — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:20:31 +0000

Posted by AARP

Posted on 06/23/2017

by Susan Reinhard, Jean Accius, Lynda Flowers, and Ari Houser | Print

The Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) now under consideration in the Senate would drastically alter the Medicaid program. The proposed Senate bill would change the way the federal government currently funds Medicaid by limiting federal funding and shifting cost over time to both states and Medicaid enrollees. BCRA would subject older adults, adults with disabilities, expansion adults, and non-disabled children under age 19 to mandatory per enrollee caps beginning in 2020. State Medicaid programs would have the option to choose between block grants and per enrollee caps for non-elderly non-disabled non-expansion adults.

The Senate bill would start out using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index (M-CPI)—a measure of the average out-of-pocket cost of medical care services used by an average consumer—as the growth rate for per enrollee caps. However, beginning in 2025, it would slash the growth rate to the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U)—a measure of general inflation that examines out-of-pocket household spending on goods and services used for everyday living. CPI-U does not tie closely to medical costs and will not reflect population growth or the impact of aging. To be clear, none of the proposed growth factors—M-CPI, M-CPI+1, and CPI-U— keep pace with the growth in Medicaid spending.

Although studies have examined the impact of Medicaid spending cuts in the House-passed healthcare bill over a 10 year period (e.g. [CBO] [CMS] [Urban Institute]) we know of none that examine the impacts over a longer time horizon. To fill this gap, the AARP Public Policy Institute has developed a model that looks out an additional decade to capture impacts on Medicaid spending between 2027 and 2036.

By dramatically reducing the per capita cap growth factor beginning in 2025, we project that the Senate bill would cut between $2.0 and $3.8 trillion from total (federal and state) Medicaid spending over the 20-year period between 2017 and 2036 for the four non-expansion Medicaid enrollment groups: older adults, adults with disabilities, children, and non-expansion adults (children with disabilities are excluded because BCRA does not subject them to capped funding). A cut of this magnitude threatens the viability of the program in unprecedented ways and will increase the number of people who no longer have access to essential healthcare services and critical supports. The projections do not include the proposed cuts to the adult expansion population, which would also be considerable.

Previous analysis by the AARP Public Policy Institute discusses why capping Medicaid is flawed and would leave states and the poorest and sickest Americans holding the bag for the shortfalls that will most certainly occur.

Table 1 shows the cumulative 20-year cuts to Medicaid by eligibility group under the Senate health reform bill for three growth rate projections. The bill would cap per enrollee cost growth using two measures of inflation (M-CPI and CPI-U), which are highly variable and uncertain, though well short of what is needed to maintain the integrity of the Medicaid program. It is difficult to plan for such uncertain growth rates, and reasonable projections are far apart.

We present the high, middle, and low case for M-CPI/CPI-U growth rates based on the following:

Low Case. Based on historical growth rates. Over the last five years (2012-2016), the M-CPI growth rate has averaged 3.0% per year, and the CPI-U growth rate has averaged 1.32% per year.
Middle Case. Based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. CBO projects M-CPI to grow by 3.7% per year, and CPI-U by 2.4% per year.
High Case. Based on projections from 2016 CMS Medicaid Actuarial Report. From 2019 onward, this report projects M-CPI to grow by 4.2% per year, and CPI-U by 2.6% per year.

In short, the lower the cap growth rate, the more severe the Medicaid cuts will be.

The charts below demonstrate that for any projection of the bill’s cap growth rates, BCRA will lead to significant funding shortfalls for older adults, adults with disabilities, and non-disabled low-income children and adults. The end result is that states and beneficiaries will be left with severe funding shortages, and states will be forced to cut eligibility, provider rates, or covered services—or very likely all three.

Susan Reinhard is a senior vice president at AARP, directing its Public Policy Institute, the focal point for AARP’s public policy research and analysis. She also serves as the chief strategist for the Center to Champion Nursing in America, a resource center to ensure the nation has the nurses it needs.

Jean Accius is vice president of livable communities and long-term services and supports for the AARP Public Policy Institute. He works on Medicaid and long-term care issues.

Lynda Flowers is a Senior Strategic Policy Adviser with the AARP Public Policy Institute, specializing in Medicaid issues, health disparities and public health.

Ari Houser is a Senior Methods Adviser at AARP Public Policy Institute. His work focuses on demographics, disability, family caregiving, and long-term services and supports (LTSS).

Are you 64 and making $56,800 a year? Welcome to a $20,500 Trumpcare insurance premium

David Posnett — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:15:12 +0000

Posted on Daily Kos

By Joan McCarter

Monday Jun 26, 2017 · 5:37 PM EDT

Popular vote loser Donald Trump freely admits he called the House version of Trumpcare “mean, mean, mean” and also claimed that he wanted a Senate bill that is “generous, kind, with heart.” That’s not what he got with the Senate version of Trumpcare, the “Better Care Act.” In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says it’s just as mean by the numbers, if not more so.

According to their estimates, 15 million people will lose their insurance next year, 2018. An election year. By 2026, 22 million people who are now insured will have lost that insurance. Compared to the Affordable Care Act, “an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.” The biggest hit, as in the House bill, lands on Medicaid.

The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid—spending on the program would decline in 2026 by 26 percent in comparison with what CBO projects under current law—and from changes to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) subsidies for nongroup health insurance. Those savings would be partially offset by the effects of other changes to the ACA’s provisions dealing with insurance coverage: additional spending designed to reduce premiums and a reduction in revenues from repealing penalties on employers who do not offer insurance and on people who do not purchase insurance. […]In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance.

Keep in mind that “later years” part. This estimate doesn’t go beyond 2026; however the CBO doesn’t think that the so-called “flexibility” for Medicaid that block granting would be for states is all that. Instead, it would be a burden. “With less federal reimbursement for Medicaid, states would need to decide whether to commit more of their own resources to finance the program at current-law levels or to reduce spending by cutting payments to health care providers and health plans, eliminating optional services, restricting eligibility for enrollment through work requirements and other changes, or (to the extent feasible) arriving at more efficient methods for delivering services.” It also projects that post-2026, Medicaid enrollments would continue to fall.

People with individual plans will see “substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending, even though benchmark premiums would decline, on average, in 2020 and later years.” That’s because insurance would pay for a smaller share of benefits. That’s going to be true for “close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs [essential health benefits] using waivers. People who used services or benefits no longer included in the EHBs would experience substantial increases in supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending on health care, or would choose to forgo the services.”

In some areas of the country—particularly sparsely populated ones (are you listening Lisa Murkowski)—the CBO foresees a market collapse, the classic death spiral. “Some sparsely populated areas might have no nongroup insurance offered because the reductions in subsidies would lead fewer people to decide to purchase insurance—and markets with few purchasers are less profitable for insurers.”

Yes, this bill is mean, mean, mean. But hey, it’s got lots of tax cuts for the very rich, so expect most Republicans to overlook the other parts.

A Personal Fight

David Posnett — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 03:22:11 +0000

Published as Letter to the Editor, in the East Hampton Press, page 7, March 15, 2017

My friend Liz was an intense supporter of the ACA (Obamacare). There was a good reason. She had her health insurance canceled back in 2005 and then months later she was stricken with a nasty type of cancer. Chemotherapy nearly bankrupted her costing $400,000. But she survived. She became a long-term cancer survivor and started a national support group for patients like herself, a group counting a membership of over 5000 cancer survivors. She was very well informed and attended medical conferences to keep up with the latest advances.

However, she still had no medical insurance. So she signed up on-line for the ACA and she was waiting for her insurance card. She wasn’t feeling well. Fully aware of the costs, she did not want to see a specialist in NY City until her insurance card was in hand. One Monday she went to Southampton Hospital’s emergency room because of severe shortness of breath. A few hours later she was dead!

It is not clear what happened. But it is very clear that

Health insurance is not a “joke”. In fact, lacking health insurance dissuades us from consulting a physician when we know that we should. Lacking insurance really costs lives.
Treatment for cancer and other disorders can be extremely expensive and often leads to personal bankruptcy, especially when you are uninsured. Healthcare disasters like hers were in fact the most common reason behind personal bankruptcy until we go the ACA.

Many people were touched by my friend. She was in her fifties and she lived in Amagansett when she died. She fought for all those with her predicament. I know she would want us all to fight for the ACA and for “health-care for all” that includes those that cannot pay for insurance.

Cancer Patients in Fear of the Ultimate Death Panel

David Posnett — Sun, 26 Feb 2017 06:37:29 +0000

Cancer patients, survivors fear GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, By Laurie McGinley February 23, 2017

Great article in the WaPo, reminds me of my friend Liz. She was young when she was first diagnosed with an aggressive type of lymphoma. In 50% of cases, this type of cancer can be cured with chemotherapy. She had lost her insurance at the time. So she spent about $ 350,000 of her savings and was lucky to get a cure, but she was also broke! Years later she applied for Obamacare on the exchange. She was actually waiting for her insurance card to go back to a physician and deal with some new troubling symptoms. The card did not come in time. She died very suddenly without medical insurance.The new WaPo article describes other cancer patients and how they feel about losing Obamacare. Here is some of their testimony:

Ashley Walton was 25 when a mole on her back turned out to be melanoma. She had it removed, but three years later she discovered a lump in her abdomen. She was then unemployed and uninsured, …. Every company rejected her.

By the time Walton finally sought medical help, the melanoma had spread to her brain, lungs and elsewhere. And she eventually became eligible for California’s Medicaid program, which had been expanded under the Affordable Care Act. Two major surgeries, radiation and immunotherapy did not cure the cancer — but did beat it back.

She credits her survival to the ACA. Without it, “I would likely be dead, and my family would likely be bankrupt from trying to save me,” she said. Her greatest concern is that Republican assaults on the law will imperil that coverage.

“For cancer survivors, we literally live and die by insurance,” Walton said.

“People are scared out of their minds,” said 34-year-old Erin Price-Schabert, who seven years ago was treated for breast cancer. She frets whether that history would make her “uninsurable” in the individual market if she were to leave her job.

Indeed, many people described a kind of existential dread that matches their fear of cancer.

House Republicans have called for major changes in federal subsidies, which have helped the vast majority of people with ACA policies afford their plans. They want state high-risk health insurance pools for people with big medical bills.

Herbert Malamut of Southampton, N.J., is on edge. He remembers the old insurance pools, … “Those pools were poorly funded and had high premiums and skimpy benefits,” said Malamut, 61, who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2012. “I don’t know why we would go back to them.”

“Some people will fall through the cracks,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Elizabeth Alcorn, 56, and her husband say “We are too young for Medicare.” He’s dealing with prostate cancer that just recurred after several years. “I have had good security with [the ACA],” Gerry Corridon said, “and now we don’t know how this is going to end up.”

In Thousand Oaks, Calif., the law’s bleak future is weighing heavily on 61-year-old Maryann Hammers, too. Diagnosed with ovarian cancer three years ago, the freelance writer underwent surgery and chemotherapy and often couldn’t work. The disease recurred seven months later, and now blood tests suggest that it’s back yet again.

“I know what’s coming next,” she said. “And it’s a friggin’ nightmare.”

Hammers has been covered by an ACA health plan. She’s “completely panicked” about the Republicans’ plan to repeal the law and what that could do to her coverage next year.“Without coverage, I don’t get care, and without care, I die,” she said. “So, to me, the people trying to do away with the ACA are the ultimate death panel.”

Wake up, Rep Lee Zeldin! There are about 9000 cases of cancer (invasive malignant tumors) annually in Suffolk county. Most of these people are your constituents. They depend on you. Without affordable health care coverage, they die!

Pressing Congressman Zeldin

David Posnett — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:18:19 +0000

Nice going, Bob Brody and Betty Mazur, who represented East Hampton residents as protesters at the demonstration in Riverhead on Tuesday Jan 3rd. Here is the full story in the East Hampton Star as reported by Chris Walsh.

Bob was rightly concerned that one can not repeal Obamacare and preserve coverage for kids until they are 26 years old under their parent’s policy, as well as the rule that forbids insurances from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc. The math just doesn’t work. So far the insurance companies benefited from a) government subsidies for Obamacare policies, and b) government pressure on individuals and businesses to increase the pool of insurance premiums. Imagine up to 20-30 million insurance policies disappearing with full repeal: either insurance companies will go broke, or premiums will skyrocket, or deductibles will be huge, or the lifetime caps on benefits will return…

We all should be concerned!

The ACA seems to be working…

David Posnett — Mon, 24 Mar 2014 03:32:16 +0000

Robert Reich discusses the ACA which seems to be working. But there is a lot that needs fixing. Above all what needs fixing is the oft deceitful misinformation. Read on here! Contributed by Arlene Coulter.

Tears for Liz

David Posnett — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:30:40 +0000

My friend Liz was an intense supporter of the ACA. There was a good reason. She had her health insurance canceled back in 2005 when she was stricken with a nasty cancer. Chemotherapy nearly bankrupted her. But she survived. She became a cancer survivor and started a national support group for patients like herself, a group counting a membership of over 5000. She was very well informed and attended medical conferences to keep up with the latest advances.

However, she still had no medical insurance. So a few weeks ago she signed up on-line for the ACA and she was waiting for her insurance card. She wasn’t feeling well. Fully aware of the costs, she did not want to see a specialist in NY City until her insurance card was in hand. However, on Monday she went to an emergency room because of shortness of breath. A few hours later she was dead!

Its not clear what happened. BUT it is very clear that

Health insurance is not a “joke” – in fact, lacking health insurance dissuades us from consulting a physician when we know that we should. Lacking insurance really costs lives.
Treatment for cancer and other disorders can be extremely expensive and often leads to personal bankruptcy, specially when you are uninsured.

Many people were touched by Liz and I know they are mourning. I know she would want us all to fight for the ACA (Obamacare) in her name. RIP Liz.

Confused by Obamacare ? For Suffolk County Residents, read on…

David Posnett — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:46:54 +0000

Confused? Not sure how it may benefit you? Not sure how much it will cost? If you are anywhere near Southampton, Riverhead or Hampton Bays, here are 3 seminars coming up: Layman’s terms. Resource guide to local enrollers.

Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:30pm to 8:30pm
Rogers Memorial Library, Morris Meeting Room, 91 Coopers Farm Rd, Southampton, NY 11968. (631) 283 0774, ext 523

Thu Mar 6, 2014 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Riverhead Free Library, 330 Court Street, Riverhead, NY 11902; call (631) 727 3228 or email contact@riverheadlibrary.com

Tues Mar 25, 2014 6:30pm to 8:30pm
Hampton Bays Public Library, 52 Ponquogue Ave., Hampton Bays, NY 11946, call (631) 728 6241 or email hbaylib2suffolk.lib.ny.us

insurance – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

How Insurers are Covering COVID-19

Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Molina

Aetna (CVS)

Anthem

Centene

Cigna

Humana

UnitedHealthcare

Our Healthcare System will Change (Like it or Not)

The Senate Health Reform Bill Slashes Medicaid Severely

Are you 64 and making $56,800 a year? Welcome to a $20,500 Trumpcare insurance premium

A Personal Fight

Cancer Patients in Fear of the Ultimate Death Panel

Cancer patients, survivors fear GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, By Laurie McGinley February 23, 2017

Pressing Congressman Zeldin

The ACA seems to be working…

Tears for Liz

Confused by Obamacare ? For Suffolk County Residents, read on…