The ads, which began airing this summer, tout the law’s preventive services benefits, including coverage of vaccinations, mammograms and other screenings. For many people, these services will now be available through their health insurance without a co-pay or out-of-pocket costs.

“Right now, millions of Americans are using their preventive benefits from the health care law. You can, too,” says one of the ads’ voiceovers.

Asked about the campaign, a Department of Health and Human Services official noted that the health law itself called for an “education and outreach campaign.” says that, along with explaining the new preventive benefits, the campaign should describe “the importance of utilizing preventive services to promote wellness, reduce health disparities, and mitigate chronic disease.”

Opponents of the law have criticized HHS for its spending on promotional campaigns. In May,ÌýSen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ken.,Ìý over a $20 million contract that HHS signed with a public relations firm.

Their displeasure has not since dissipated.

“It doesn’t take a 2,700-page law that raises costs and premiums, hikes taxes on the middle class and raids Medicare to improve preventive health,” wrote Michael Brumas, a McConnell spokesman, in anÌýemail this weekÌýto Kaiser Health News.

Portman, who has been mentioned as a potential VP pick for Mitt Romney, sent a to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to request more information about the PR contract. Having not yet received a response, Portman July 31 that would require Sebelius to comply with his request.

Here are the ads, along with transcripts:

Today a mom will see her doctor, a dad will get a screening, a little one will get a vaccine, and a teen will talk with a doc. Right now, millions of Americans are using their preventive benefits from the health care law. You can, too. Not just because there may be no insurance co-pays or out-of-pocket costs, but because of all those tomorrows you want to see. Use your benefits today. Learn more at healthcare.gov.

It isn’t just your mammogram — it’s your teenager’s first varsity game. It isn’t just your annual exam — it’s your daughter’s wedding. Did you know with your health insurance you may now have some preventive benefits with no co-pays or out-of-pocket costs? It isn’t just your cholesterol screening — it’s all the tomorrows you’re looking forward to. Learn more at healthcare.gov.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/new-ads-promote-health-laws-preventive-benefits/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

That’s the point of a , the official supplier of health insurance for Team USA.

Highmark’sÌý“PPO Blue” plan covers about 1.4 million Americans. Among themÌýare about 1,000 elite athletes who, along withÌýmore than 360 U.S. Olympic Committee employees,ÌýgetÌýcoverage through the .

The Olympic hopefuls often have other policies, too, especially given their high risk for injury andÌýEAHI’s very highÌýdeductible. Still, the plan provides what the USOC describes as “a level ofÌýbaseÌýsupport … in order to minimize the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by insured athletes for costs of medical care.”ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

“It’s a similar plan with similar benefits to those people might have through an employer,” said Steven Nelson, a senior vice president with Highmark. PPO Blue is also available on the individual market.

Nelson would not provide specific details about the USOC health plan, which offers preventive services and other benefits, both in the U.S. and overseas. Nelson did say that the committee can tailor its plan to the demands of athletes, such as physical therapy benefits. The USOC also did not provide comment onÌýplan specifics.

Performance Determines Eligibility

The public likely wouldn’t expect Olympians to incur many health care expenses, given their excellent physical condition. But that isn’t the case, according to Jeffrey Potteiger, an exercise science researcher at Grand Valley State University.

“The reality is these athletes see physicians and trainers at a greater rate than average,” Potteiger said. “Any minor breakdown in health can have a major effect on performance.”

Mark Hutchinson, director of sports medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, agreed. Having worked with members of the U.S. gymnastics, basketball and field hockey teams, Hutchinson said that elite athletes see their doctor for an illness much sooner than the average person because getting proper medication early can shorten recovery time.

Like many other health plans, EAHI covers prescriptions and visits to the doctor, with higher charges for out-of-network care. But, as evidenced by its name, the Elite Athlete Health Insurance program is also highly selective. The 1,000 or so policies offered by the USOC are divided among the national groups that govern individual sports – for summer, winter and Paralympic Games – and each group sets its own requirements for eligibility.

, for example, is allocated 56 policies. Olympic team members are given the first crack at the coverage, followed by the top-ranked swimmers in each event who did not make the team. Similarly,Ìý has five policies it first offers to its Olympic team members, with the next level of priority given to players with the highest Badminton World Federation ranking.Ìý has 150 and first gives access to athletes in its , which includes athletes who medaled at the 2008 Games or medaled at a recent major championship.

For athletes, EAHI is one of many options, and they may opt for multiple layers of coverage. Olympians might have their own insurance through a spouse, employer or the individual market. Younger athletes also might choose to be on their parents’ health insurance. Since 2010, the federal health law has required insurers to cover dependents up to age 26.

According to Hutchinson, EAHI can help cover athletes above and beyond what they may have on these private insurance plans. For example, he said, the USOC likely offers better coverage of health care provided outside of the U.S.

Olympians might also look beyond EAHI because of the program’s limitations. Eligibility for the health plan is determined annually, and athletes’ performance or rankings canÌýchange. EAHI also has a $25,000 deductible for sports injuries, according to recent plan information from the . The large deductible and athletes’ high risk of injury may drive them toward other insurance options.

Members of the gymnastics team often have , said John Hewett, chief financial officer for USA Gymnastics. Gymnasts – usually among the youngest Olympians – are often on their parents’ health plans. They also have secondary protection through an accident insurance plan, funded by USA Gymnastics, which covers potential injuries during training and competition.

The latter ensures gymnasts have coverage for something particularly devastating, such as a paralyzing injury. According to Hutchinson, this kind of catastrophic coverage is common among sports groups that want to avoid potential lawsuits.

Hewett said that USA Gymnastics simply wants to ensure its athletes are protected before, during and after the London games.

“USOC has them for two weeks every four years,” he said, “but we have to make sure they’re covered the rest of the time.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/olympic-athletes-health-insurance/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Walgreens partnered with Notre Dame to open an on-campus Ìýfor employeesÌýlast week. The more than 7,000-square-foot facility is run by Walgreens’ clinic division, Take Care Health Systems, and offers , laboratory testing, physical therapy and other services.

This wellness center is the first of its kind, said Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown, and helpsÌýfill a niche because the institution does not have a medical school or hospital of its own.

Take Care runs of these employer-based health centers nationwide. Nearly 12,000 people are expected to be served at the Notre Dame center, with the clinic limited to serving full-time faculty and staff, and their spouses and dependents. Spouses and dependents of graduate students will also have access. Graduate students, along with undergraduates, will continue to receive services at the on-campus student health center.

According to Brown, the Notre Dame center will provide an on-campus option for those who previously had to seek primary care elsewhere in South Bend, Ind. Also, a full-service Walgreens pharmacy housed by the wellness center will offerÌýover-the-counter medications at a 15 to 20 percent discount compared to other Walgreens stores. The pharmacy also fills prescriptions.

There lies a wrinkle. While most full-service pharmacies provide contraception to their customers, this Walgreens will not, in accordance with Notre Dame and its religious beliefs.

“We have a contract with Walgreens that they follow our medical plan requirements and do not provide contraception, except when there is a medical need not related to birth control,” Brown said.

The contract stipulation comes on the heels of Notre Dame’s very with the Obama administration regarding its , which requires employers’ insurance plans to cover birth controlÌýfor women without a copayment. In May, the university and 42 other groups over this requirement because it conflicts with religious teachings against the use of contraception and, they said, violates religious freedom. ÌýThe groups rejected a in which the insurer – not the employer – would pay for and administer birth control.

Meanwhile,ÌýWalgreens has, in recent years, said that it will at its pharmacies, as well as a prescription contraception from another pharmacist if one pharmacist refuses to provide it. Walgreens did not provide a comment on its current policies and its arrangement with Notre Dame.

The Ìýnotes that Indiana is not one of the few states that requires pharmacists to provide access to birth control or allows pharmacists to refuse access based on their religious or moral beliefs.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/notre-dame-on-campus-retail-clinic-opens-but-without-birth-control/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

	Postpartum Depression (Sec. 2952) Urges the National Institute of Mental Health to conduct a multi-year study into the causes and effects of postpartum depression. It authorized $3 million in 2010 and such sums as necessary in 2011 and 2012 to provide services to women at risk of postpartum depression.
	Abstinence Education (Sec. 2954) Reauthorizes funding through 2014 for states to provide abstinence-only sex education programs that teach students abstinence is “the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.” Federal funding for these programs expired in 2003.
	Power-Driven Wheelchairs (Sec. 3136) Revises Medicare payment levels for power-driven wheelchairs and makes it so that only “complex” and “rehabilitative” wheelchairs can be purchased; all others must be rented.
	Oral Health Care (Sec. 4102) Instructs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to embark on a five-year national public education campaign to promote oral health care measures such as “community water fluoridation and dental sealants.”
	Privacy Breaks for Nursing Mothers (Sec. 4207) Requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide a private location at their worksites where nursing mothers “can express breast milk.” Employers must also provide employees with “a reasonable break time” to do this, though employers are not required to pay their employees during these nursing breaks.
	Transparency on Drug Samples (Sec. 6004) Requires pharmaceutical manufacturers that provide doctors or hospitals with samples of their drugs to submit to the Department of Health and Human Services the names and addresses of the providers that requested the samples, as well as the amount of drugs they received.
	Face-to-Face Encounters (Sec. 6407) Changes eligibility for home health services and durable medical equipment, requiring Medicare beneficiaries to have a “face-to-face” encounter with their physician or a similarly qualified individual within six months of when the health professional writes the order for such services or equipment.
	Diabetes & Death Certificates (Sec. 10407) Directs the CDC and the HHS Secretary to encourage states to adopt new standards for issuing death certificates that include information about whether the deceased had diabetes.
	Breast Cancer Awareness (Sec. 10413) Instructs the CDC to conduct an education campaign to raise young women’s awareness regarding “the occurrence of breast cancer and the general and specific risk factors in women who may be at high risk for breast cancer based on familial, racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds such as Ashkenazi Jewish populations.”
	Assisted Suicide (Sec. 1553) Forbids the federal government or anyone receiving federal health funds from discriminating against any health care entity that won’t provide an “item or service furnished for the purpose of causing … the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/10-little-known-health-law-provisions/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Push aside that cup of coffeeÌýand check this out: TV personality and former House Republican Joe Scarborough revealed this morning that his 24-year-old son is among those benefiting from the health law.

Scarborough, a small-government conservative who has criticized presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney for being the was wrapping up a health law discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when he said he had a confession to make: “I know one place where Obamacare is working.”

Over breakfast last weekend, Scarborough’s wife said that 24-year-old Joey Scarborough opted not to purchase health insurance through his employer and was instead on his father’s plan. The federal health law requires insurers to cover , though “” group plans — those in existence before the law took effect –don’t have to offer this dependent coverage until 2014 if the adult child is eligible for other insurance.

“I pushed the pancakes away and just walked outside in a huff,” Scarborough senior said, surprised that “the Scarborough family is buying in to Obamacare.”

Joey isn’t alone, though: Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) recently said from the under-26 provision. Overall, the Obama administration estimates that have gained insurance coverage because of the health law.

Watch the clip above for Scarborough’s confession.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/morning-joes-scarborough-confesses-his-son-benefits-from-health-law/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

A continued lack of specialists and other trained providers including primary care physicians and nurses will likely make it difficult for aging patients to receive treatment for depression, dementia and other conditions. In addition, some experts are concerned that the baby boomer population, which is a growing component of the nation’s older demographic, have an unaddressed problem with substances – namely misuse of prescription medications.

“There is a conspicuous lack of national attention either to preparing the health care workforce […] or to ensuring sufficient numbers of personnel for the rapidly growing elderly population,” the IOM committee wrote. It’s estimated that as many as one in five members of the elderly population had at least one mental health or substance use problem in 2010.

Meeting the growing needs of the elderly will require a coordinated effort among government agencies, professional societies, providers and even family caregivers, the IOM report said.

Government in particular can help by expanding training and loan forgiveness programs for health care professionals, the report suggests. It can also promote improved health care delivery through coordinated care models and through revisions to Medicare and Medicaid payment practices. For example, psychiatric case managers are not reimbursed by those programs, despite research showing that they can provide effective treatment for depression and substance abuse, said Peter Rabins, an IOM committee member and psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

“We need to change mindsets” in both training and delivery of care, Rabins added. Health care providers, policymakers and others will have to recognize that mental health problems frequently run parallel to other medical issues and can lead to poor outcomes and higher costs.

Already, the government is pushing to improve mental health staffing for military veterans, an especially vulnerable subset of the elderly population. In April, the that it would add around 1,900 psychologists and other staff.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/report-nation-isnt-ready-to-meet-elderly-patients-mental-health-care-needs/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The are already starting to come in: Thelast week did not have an immediate significant effect onÌýpublic opinionÌýof the health law. But that doesn’t mean that supporters and opponents won’t continue to try to shape voters’ views until election day.

We contacted people knowledgeable about marketing. We asked them howÌý President Barack Obama andÌýpresumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney could spin the ruling to theirÌýadvantage.

ÌýHereÌýisÌýwhat theyÌýhad to say:

Ken Goldstein, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Kantar Media. is an international firm that advises advertisers, agencies and media companies.

There are two empirical facts about health care and advertising: One, there’s been more advertising against the health care plan since it was passed – and by a massive amount. And two, there were only a handful of Democrats that ran ads specifically using health care, while there was a massive number of Republicans using health care against them. To use a poker analogy, advertising will be the ultimate tell – the ultimate indicator – of how Democrats and Republicans think [the health care issue] will play. If Republicans are using it more in ads, then it’s more beneficial to them. If the opposite is true, then it’s instead helping the Democrats.

Ken Wheaton, managing editor ,Ìýa magazine that covers media and marketing issues.

At the moment, I wouldn’t see much need for the Obama campaign to spin this or to advertise too much around it. They’ll obviously use it as a fundraising appeal to the base. “We succeeded; we still need your help.” But widespread advertising around it risks angering independents and moderates he’ll need to win and who aren’t necessarily convinced of this. The Republicans and other groups have been spending and will continue to spend on advertising against this. It’s a great fundraiser for them too. If I had to guess, I’d bet that Romney or Republican Super PACs have an easy soundbite for a 30-second ad in which Obama declares that the individual mandate is not a tax countered by the ruling from the Supreme Court that declares that is indeed a tax.

Celinda Lake, president, ,Ìýa Democratic polling group.

ForÌý Obama: You’re in control of the conversation now. I would now turn back to the economy and also frame Romney in terms of the economy. We now have a chance to move the conversation. This is the law. This is the plan. This is how it affects you. We have an opportunity to move this from a political issue to a consumer issue. We also have an opportunity to shift from defense to offense. And our best offense is that Republicans want to cut traditional Medicare and provide tax breaks to millionaires.

For Romney: I think he’s in a tough place and he’s done the best he could. First, he’s characterized it as a tax increase – which it is not. Second, he’s turned it back to the economy. I think he’s made a big mistake, though, in embracing the call for repeal from the House. Only 24 percent of people want to repeal the law entirely. People don’t want to start all over on this. It’s much better for him to promote repeal and replace, but he’s embraced repeal immediately.

,Ìýfounding partner of Goddard Gunster and chairman of Goddard Global. Goddard is an expert on advocacy advertising and launched the “Harry and Louise” ads opposing the Clinton administration plans for a health overhaul.

The problem, and I think the reason why a lot of Americans have been uncomfortable with so-called Obamacare, is because they didn’t understand, or didn’t think there was anything in there for them. Making the case that “this means you’ll always be able to get insurance, this means your kids can be covered until they’re 26, this means the insurance companies can’t raise your rates or put a cap on your benefits,” that’s the message that Democrats need to pump out there.

Republicans have a very narrow window.Ìý If they’re going to get traction on the idea that it may be constitutional, but it’s a bad law, they’ve got to make that case closely and quickly.Ìý I think some congressional Republicans have been doing that; I’m not sure that Mitt Romney has been.Ìý On the flip side of that, I think the president has got from now until November to make his case, and I think as people start to focus … [on] what the heck it means for American families, it’s likely support for it is going to grow.Ìý And if they really want to stop it, Republicans need to act very, very quickly.

David B. Kendall, senior fellow for health and fiscal policy at ÌýThird Way is a Washington-based think tank aimed at implementing centrist policies.

For Obama:Ìý Simply put, deflect the lies about the president’s health care law and pivot to benefits.Ìý The reason:Ìý Most people feel they don’t have enough info to make a judgment about the law.Ìý People don’t want spin—don’t sell it, explain it.

For Romney:Ìý He’s got a hard time getting away from the mandate.Ìý He should explain why his proposal for president is different from what he enacted as governor of Massachusetts.

Joe Trippi, founder and president of , a media consultant who has helped a number of Democratic candidates.

The reality is that all the early polling suggests that people don’t want to keep fighting. ÌýThe president is right on his message of not fighting. ÌýIn many ways, Republicans seem to be more the obstructionists, and people don’t want to go back and keep relitigating. ÌýOne of the problems is that Romney doesn’t want to embrace the obstructionist image. ÌýImage-wise, it’s bad if 57 perecent of people don’t want to keep fighting. ÌýThe president should keep trying to move on and focus on jobs.

Interestingly, there is a divergence between Romney and House Republicans. ÌýWhat is good for a House Republican’s reelection campaign may not be what is good for Romney’s. ÌýIn 2010, the Republicans scored their gains in the HouseÌýby saying [Democrats] voted for the large tax increase in the health care bill. ÌýHouse Republicans may want to play 2010 all over again.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/marketing-mavens-offer-advice-on-handling-health-law-messaging/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Health care spending is growing significantly faster for children than for adults, and a new report finds thatÌýthat’s largely because of price increases.

From 2007Ìýthrough 2010, per capita spending for children covered by an employer-sponsored plan increased 18.6 percent to slightly more than $2,100 a year. Also during the four years, the average cost of an outpatient visit increased more than a third, as did the average cost of an emergency room visit.

The findings come from a by the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit group with access to claims data from three of the nation’s largest insurers – Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare. The combined claims data covers about 20 percent of all people under age 65 with employer coverage. An earlier HCCI report showedÌý for patients of all ages.

The majority of U.S. children, estimated at 41.4 million in 2010,Ìýare coveredÌýthroughÌýemployer-sponsored insurance.

Authors of the latest report note several areas for concern in addition to price increases. Children’s use of mental health and substance abuse services jumped nearly 24 percent. Prescriptions for antidepressants and similar psychiatric drugs rose more than 10 percent, and in 2010, children age 14 to 18 each had at least one prescription, on average.

“Children tend to use less expensive health care, so a bump in children’s health care spending is troubling because it could indicate that kids are getting sicker or receiving unnecessary tests or excess procedures,” HCCI Governing Board Chairman Martin Gaynor said in a prepared statement. “The data on spending for mental health and substance abuse services is particularly worrying.”

Other interesting findings:

— Overall prescription drug use by children dropped slightly between 2007 and 2010, but use of cardiovascular drugs and hormones both increased more than 20 percent.

— Babies and toddlers (under age 4) had the highest per capita spending — $3,896 in 2010. Teenagers age 14 to 18 had the largest spending increase — 22.3 percent between 2007 and 2010.

— Per capita spending on children was lowest in the West and highest in the Northeast in 2010. There was a $311 annual difference between the two regions.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/report-spending-on-childrens-care-rose-because-of-higher-prices/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“3.1 million [young adults] now have valuable protections for their finances and their health, and only the law can guarantee those protections,” said Richard Kronick, a deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. In recent weeks, several insurers made to maintain under-26 coverage, regardless of the Supreme Court’s health law decision.

Beginning in September 2010, the law required insurers to cover dependents under the age of 26, allowing many children to stay on their if they didn’t have coverage available through an employer.

Tuesday’s from the National Center for Health Statistics finds that the percentage of covered adults age 19 to 25 increased from 64.4 percent in September 2010 to 74.8 percent in December 2011. This 10 percentage-point jump in 15 months translates to about 3.1 million young adults gaining coverage, according to an HHS .

“That kind of response in a short period of time is unprecedented,” Kronick said.

Previously, HHS that 2.5 million young adults gained coverage through June 2011. And , the Commonwealth Fund that roughly 6.6 million gained health insurance between November 2010 and November 2011.

The latter number, however, is based on a survey which asked whether young adults joined a parent’s plan. The federal survey instead asked whether they had coverage at the time, so it does not include the many young adults who were already insured and then switched to a parent’s plan.

“Gains in coverage were particularly large for young men,” the HHS report also notes. Coverage went up more than 14 points for men age 19 to 25.

According to Sara Collins, a vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, the data shows that young men have been incorrectly stereotyped as not wanting or seeking health care. “If they have affordable insurance options available, they’ll take advantage of them,” Collins added. ÌýYoung women continue to lead in insurance coverage, 77.5 versus 72.0 percent for young men.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/obama-administration-finds-3-1-million-young-adults-gained-coverage-under-law/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This story was produced in collaboration with

College students and their families will have better options for health insurance in the upcoming school year, but there will be higher costs, too.

Undergraduate students typically stay on a parent’s plan or purchase a health plan through their school. Graduate students often also have those options. Many students choose the first option now that plans are required by the 2010 health law to cover children up to age 26. An estimatedÌý joined a parent’s plan through June 2011, according to a .

Insurers responded to this requirement by slightly raising their prices. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the under-26 rule led to a 0.9 percent increase in group plan premiums last year. In addition, some insurers have changed their pricing structure, which is likely to lead to higher costs for families.

College health plans, which often kept prices down by offering skimpy benefits, are also expected to become more costly as they accommodate the . A few schools have had their prices rise so much that they have decided to drop their health plans altogether.

These changes complicate insurance shopping for students and their parents. Just as prices vary, sometimes sharply, so do benefits. “As premiums go up in all [insurance] markets, people are going to need to look at all their options,” said Kevin Lucia, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. Aside from parent and college health plans, students can purchase an individual plan, but that’s done only rarely.

College Health Plans

Student plans work much like other forms of health insurance, with services often available on and off campus.

Starting this year, the health law requires many student plans to meet applied to policies sold by insurers to individuals, including coverage of a set of preventive services without a co-pay and a phased-in ban on annual dollar limits, which many plans previously used to keep prices down.Ìý

are raising their premiums as much as 50 percent to comply with the new law’s requirements for coverage, according to Stephen Beckley, a student insurance consultant and co-organizer of the Lookout Mountain Group, an organization of college health professionals. Right now, prices of those skimpy plans are typically $400 to $620 per year.

In contrast, plans with more generous benefits are increasing their premiums less than 3 percent in some cases, Beckley said. Typically, these plans cost $1,700 to $1,900.

The health law regulations bolster student plans, Beckley and others agreed, but they don’t necessarily provide excellent coverage.

“Compared to what some students experienced before with student plans, these are better protections,” said Sara Collins, a vice president of the Commonwealth Fund. But many plans still have low lifetime dollar limits, and some of the 2010 law’s requirements won’t take full effect for a couple more years, she added. In the interim, plans that don’t comply fully need only provide a written notice to potential purchasers.

With plenty of variation still in the market, Beckley suggests asking a school if its student plan follows standards set by the American College Health Association. The , which Beckley helped write, recommend that school plans cover preventive services, psychotropic medications, catastrophic situations and more.

Family Plans
Many families might see a parent’s plan as the default option. The premium for a family plan typically covers all dependents for one price, so the inclusion of a student makes little if any difference.

In 2011, the average annual premium for a family of four insured through an employer was about $15,000, with the employee paying about $4,100 of the total, according to a survey by the . (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Several changes in the market, however, might make this route less attractive.

Some insurers have revamped their pricing structures, charging per member for family coverage rather than the usual flat rate. It isn’t a new phenomenon, but these “unitized premiums” are becoming more common, according to Craig Rosenberg, a national practice leader for benefits manager Aon Hewitt. Some see this approach as more equitable, given how families can vary in the number of children and associated health-care costs.

In another pricing change, insurers are moving away from a single deductible for the whole family and opting for a separate deductible for each family member.

As a result, families may reconsider putting a child on their insurance plan, experts say. Despite the expectation that the up-to-26 provision would trigger a significant drop in student plan enrollment, numbers suggest otherwise. In interviews, UnitedHealthcare and Aetna reported steady enrollment in their student plans, as did a number of schools, including the University of Texas and University of California systems.

Experts say the increasing cost of family coverage may make student insurance seem like more of a bargain.

“I had parents tell me, ‘This is a heck of a deal,’ ” said Ron Brummett, director of student services at the Colorado School o Mines, which had an 11 percent increase in plan enrollment this past fall. The School of Mines charged about $1,600 per ear for its health plan, although the premium varies depending on the student’s age.

Families also might purchase student plans because they have broader choices of doctors and hospitals near the school. Some parents might be worried that they’ll lose their employer-based coverage or see it deteriorate as companies hold down spending.

If the health law is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,Ìýthere could soon be more options for student health insurance.

In 2014, Medicaid will expand to individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. At the same time, people with higher incomes may be eligible for subsidies on state health insurance exchanges. These subsidies might apply to student plans.

Students’ eligibility for a subsidy will depend on income and whether they’re claimed as dependents on family tax returns, Collins said. Medicaid eligibility for a student is more complex and depends on household income, which could be affected by a student’s age and whether he or she lives at home, as well as by individual state rules.

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/student-health-plans/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The ads, which began airing this summer, tout the law’s preventive services benefits, including coverage of vaccinations, mammograms and other screenings. For many people, these services will now be available through their health insurance without a co-pay or out-of-pocket costs.

“Right now, millions of Americans are using their preventive benefits from the health care law. You can, too,” says one of the ads’ voiceovers.

Asked about the campaign, a Department of Health and Human Services official noted that the health law itself called for an “education and outreach campaign.” says that, along with explaining the new preventive benefits, the campaign should describe “the importance of utilizing preventive services to promote wellness, reduce health disparities, and mitigate chronic disease.”

Opponents of the law have criticized HHS for its spending on promotional campaigns. In May,ÌýSen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ken.,Ìý over a $20 million contract that HHS signed with a public relations firm.

Their displeasure has not since dissipated.

“It doesn’t take a 2,700-page law that raises costs and premiums, hikes taxes on the middle class and raids Medicare to improve preventive health,” wrote Michael Brumas, a McConnell spokesman, in anÌýemail this weekÌýto Kaiser Health News.

Portman, who has been mentioned as a potential VP pick for Mitt Romney, sent a to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to request more information about the PR contract. Having not yet received a response, Portman July 31 that would require Sebelius to comply with his request.

Here are the ads, along with transcripts:

Today a mom will see her doctor, a dad will get a screening, a little one will get a vaccine, and a teen will talk with a doc. Right now, millions of Americans are using their preventive benefits from the health care law. You can, too. Not just because there may be no insurance co-pays or out-of-pocket costs, but because of all those tomorrows you want to see. Use your benefits today. Learn more at healthcare.gov.

It isn’t just your mammogram — it’s your teenager’s first varsity game. It isn’t just your annual exam — it’s your daughter’s wedding. Did you know with your health insurance you may now have some preventive benefits with no co-pays or out-of-pocket costs? It isn’t just your cholesterol screening — it’s all the tomorrows you’re looking forward to. Learn more at healthcare.gov.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/new-ads-promote-health-laws-preventive-benefits/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

That’s the point of a , the official supplier of health insurance for Team USA.

Highmark’sÌý“PPO Blue” plan covers about 1.4 million Americans. Among themÌýare about 1,000 elite athletes who, along withÌýmore than 360 U.S. Olympic Committee employees,ÌýgetÌýcoverage through the .

The Olympic hopefuls often have other policies, too, especially given their high risk for injury andÌýEAHI’s very highÌýdeductible. Still, the plan provides what the USOC describes as “a level ofÌýbaseÌýsupport … in order to minimize the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by insured athletes for costs of medical care.”ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

“It’s a similar plan with similar benefits to those people might have through an employer,” said Steven Nelson, a senior vice president with Highmark. PPO Blue is also available on the individual market.

Nelson would not provide specific details about the USOC health plan, which offers preventive services and other benefits, both in the U.S. and overseas. Nelson did say that the committee can tailor its plan to the demands of athletes, such as physical therapy benefits. The USOC also did not provide comment onÌýplan specifics.

Performance Determines Eligibility

The public likely wouldn’t expect Olympians to incur many health care expenses, given their excellent physical condition. But that isn’t the case, according to Jeffrey Potteiger, an exercise science researcher at Grand Valley State University.

“The reality is these athletes see physicians and trainers at a greater rate than average,” Potteiger said. “Any minor breakdown in health can have a major effect on performance.”

Mark Hutchinson, director of sports medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, agreed. Having worked with members of the U.S. gymnastics, basketball and field hockey teams, Hutchinson said that elite athletes see their doctor for an illness much sooner than the average person because getting proper medication early can shorten recovery time.

Like many other health plans, EAHI covers prescriptions and visits to the doctor, with higher charges for out-of-network care. But, as evidenced by its name, the Elite Athlete Health Insurance program is also highly selective. The 1,000 or so policies offered by the USOC are divided among the national groups that govern individual sports – for summer, winter and Paralympic Games – and each group sets its own requirements for eligibility.

, for example, is allocated 56 policies. Olympic team members are given the first crack at the coverage, followed by the top-ranked swimmers in each event who did not make the team. Similarly,Ìý has five policies it first offers to its Olympic team members, with the next level of priority given to players with the highest Badminton World Federation ranking.Ìý has 150 and first gives access to athletes in its , which includes athletes who medaled at the 2008 Games or medaled at a recent major championship.

For athletes, EAHI is one of many options, and they may opt for multiple layers of coverage. Olympians might have their own insurance through a spouse, employer or the individual market. Younger athletes also might choose to be on their parents’ health insurance. Since 2010, the federal health law has required insurers to cover dependents up to age 26.

According to Hutchinson, EAHI can help cover athletes above and beyond what they may have on these private insurance plans. For example, he said, the USOC likely offers better coverage of health care provided outside of the U.S.

Olympians might also look beyond EAHI because of the program’s limitations. Eligibility for the health plan is determined annually, and athletes’ performance or rankings canÌýchange. EAHI also has a $25,000 deductible for sports injuries, according to recent plan information from the . The large deductible and athletes’ high risk of injury may drive them toward other insurance options.

Members of the gymnastics team often have , said John Hewett, chief financial officer for USA Gymnastics. Gymnasts – usually among the youngest Olympians – are often on their parents’ health plans. They also have secondary protection through an accident insurance plan, funded by USA Gymnastics, which covers potential injuries during training and competition.

The latter ensures gymnasts have coverage for something particularly devastating, such as a paralyzing injury. According to Hutchinson, this kind of catastrophic coverage is common among sports groups that want to avoid potential lawsuits.

Hewett said that USA Gymnastics simply wants to ensure its athletes are protected before, during and after the London games.

“USOC has them for two weeks every four years,” he said, “but we have to make sure they’re covered the rest of the time.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/olympic-athletes-health-insurance/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Walgreens partnered with Notre Dame to open an on-campus Ìýfor employeesÌýlast week. The more than 7,000-square-foot facility is run by Walgreens’ clinic division, Take Care Health Systems, and offers , laboratory testing, physical therapy and other services.

This wellness center is the first of its kind, said Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown, and helpsÌýfill a niche because the institution does not have a medical school or hospital of its own.

Take Care runs of these employer-based health centers nationwide. Nearly 12,000 people are expected to be served at the Notre Dame center, with the clinic limited to serving full-time faculty and staff, and their spouses and dependents. Spouses and dependents of graduate students will also have access. Graduate students, along with undergraduates, will continue to receive services at the on-campus student health center.

According to Brown, the Notre Dame center will provide an on-campus option for those who previously had to seek primary care elsewhere in South Bend, Ind. Also, a full-service Walgreens pharmacy housed by the wellness center will offerÌýover-the-counter medications at a 15 to 20 percent discount compared to other Walgreens stores. The pharmacy also fills prescriptions.

There lies a wrinkle. While most full-service pharmacies provide contraception to their customers, this Walgreens will not, in accordance with Notre Dame and its religious beliefs.

“We have a contract with Walgreens that they follow our medical plan requirements and do not provide contraception, except when there is a medical need not related to birth control,” Brown said.

The contract stipulation comes on the heels of Notre Dame’s very with the Obama administration regarding its , which requires employers’ insurance plans to cover birth controlÌýfor women without a copayment. In May, the university and 42 other groups over this requirement because it conflicts with religious teachings against the use of contraception and, they said, violates religious freedom. ÌýThe groups rejected a in which the insurer – not the employer – would pay for and administer birth control.

Meanwhile,ÌýWalgreens has, in recent years, said that it will at its pharmacies, as well as a prescription contraception from another pharmacist if one pharmacist refuses to provide it. Walgreens did not provide a comment on its current policies and its arrangement with Notre Dame.

The Ìýnotes that Indiana is not one of the few states that requires pharmacists to provide access to birth control or allows pharmacists to refuse access based on their religious or moral beliefs.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/notre-dame-on-campus-retail-clinic-opens-but-without-birth-control/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

	Postpartum Depression (Sec. 2952) Urges the National Institute of Mental Health to conduct a multi-year study into the causes and effects of postpartum depression. It authorized $3 million in 2010 and such sums as necessary in 2011 and 2012 to provide services to women at risk of postpartum depression.
	Abstinence Education (Sec. 2954) Reauthorizes funding through 2014 for states to provide abstinence-only sex education programs that teach students abstinence is “the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.” Federal funding for these programs expired in 2003.
	Power-Driven Wheelchairs (Sec. 3136) Revises Medicare payment levels for power-driven wheelchairs and makes it so that only “complex” and “rehabilitative” wheelchairs can be purchased; all others must be rented.
	Oral Health Care (Sec. 4102) Instructs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to embark on a five-year national public education campaign to promote oral health care measures such as “community water fluoridation and dental sealants.”
	Privacy Breaks for Nursing Mothers (Sec. 4207) Requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide a private location at their worksites where nursing mothers “can express breast milk.” Employers must also provide employees with “a reasonable break time” to do this, though employers are not required to pay their employees during these nursing breaks.
	Transparency on Drug Samples (Sec. 6004) Requires pharmaceutical manufacturers that provide doctors or hospitals with samples of their drugs to submit to the Department of Health and Human Services the names and addresses of the providers that requested the samples, as well as the amount of drugs they received.
	Face-to-Face Encounters (Sec. 6407) Changes eligibility for home health services and durable medical equipment, requiring Medicare beneficiaries to have a “face-to-face” encounter with their physician or a similarly qualified individual within six months of when the health professional writes the order for such services or equipment.
	Diabetes & Death Certificates (Sec. 10407) Directs the CDC and the HHS Secretary to encourage states to adopt new standards for issuing death certificates that include information about whether the deceased had diabetes.
	Breast Cancer Awareness (Sec. 10413) Instructs the CDC to conduct an education campaign to raise young women’s awareness regarding “the occurrence of breast cancer and the general and specific risk factors in women who may be at high risk for breast cancer based on familial, racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds such as Ashkenazi Jewish populations.”
	Assisted Suicide (Sec. 1553) Forbids the federal government or anyone receiving federal health funds from discriminating against any health care entity that won’t provide an “item or service furnished for the purpose of causing … the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/10-little-known-health-law-provisions/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Push aside that cup of coffeeÌýand check this out: TV personality and former House Republican Joe Scarborough revealed this morning that his 24-year-old son is among those benefiting from the health law.

Scarborough, a small-government conservative who has criticized presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney for being the was wrapping up a health law discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when he said he had a confession to make: “I know one place where Obamacare is working.”

Over breakfast last weekend, Scarborough’s wife said that 24-year-old Joey Scarborough opted not to purchase health insurance through his employer and was instead on his father’s plan. The federal health law requires insurers to cover , though “” group plans — those in existence before the law took effect –don’t have to offer this dependent coverage until 2014 if the adult child is eligible for other insurance.

“I pushed the pancakes away and just walked outside in a huff,” Scarborough senior said, surprised that “the Scarborough family is buying in to Obamacare.”

Joey isn’t alone, though: Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) recently said from the under-26 provision. Overall, the Obama administration estimates that have gained insurance coverage because of the health law.

Watch the clip above for Scarborough’s confession.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/morning-joes-scarborough-confesses-his-son-benefits-from-health-law/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

A continued lack of specialists and other trained providers including primary care physicians and nurses will likely make it difficult for aging patients to receive treatment for depression, dementia and other conditions. In addition, some experts are concerned that the baby boomer population, which is a growing component of the nation’s older demographic, have an unaddressed problem with substances – namely misuse of prescription medications.

“There is a conspicuous lack of national attention either to preparing the health care workforce […] or to ensuring sufficient numbers of personnel for the rapidly growing elderly population,” the IOM committee wrote. It’s estimated that as many as one in five members of the elderly population had at least one mental health or substance use problem in 2010.

Meeting the growing needs of the elderly will require a coordinated effort among government agencies, professional societies, providers and even family caregivers, the IOM report said.

Government in particular can help by expanding training and loan forgiveness programs for health care professionals, the report suggests. It can also promote improved health care delivery through coordinated care models and through revisions to Medicare and Medicaid payment practices. For example, psychiatric case managers are not reimbursed by those programs, despite research showing that they can provide effective treatment for depression and substance abuse, said Peter Rabins, an IOM committee member and psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

“We need to change mindsets” in both training and delivery of care, Rabins added. Health care providers, policymakers and others will have to recognize that mental health problems frequently run parallel to other medical issues and can lead to poor outcomes and higher costs.

Already, the government is pushing to improve mental health staffing for military veterans, an especially vulnerable subset of the elderly population. In April, the that it would add around 1,900 psychologists and other staff.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/report-nation-isnt-ready-to-meet-elderly-patients-mental-health-care-needs/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The are already starting to come in: Thelast week did not have an immediate significant effect onÌýpublic opinionÌýof the health law. But that doesn’t mean that supporters and opponents won’t continue to try to shape voters’ views until election day.

We contacted people knowledgeable about marketing. We asked them howÌý President Barack Obama andÌýpresumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney could spin the ruling to theirÌýadvantage.

ÌýHereÌýisÌýwhat theyÌýhad to say:

Ken Goldstein, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Kantar Media. is an international firm that advises advertisers, agencies and media companies.

There are two empirical facts about health care and advertising: One, there’s been more advertising against the health care plan since it was passed – and by a massive amount. And two, there were only a handful of Democrats that ran ads specifically using health care, while there was a massive number of Republicans using health care against them. To use a poker analogy, advertising will be the ultimate tell – the ultimate indicator – of how Democrats and Republicans think [the health care issue] will play. If Republicans are using it more in ads, then it’s more beneficial to them. If the opposite is true, then it’s instead helping the Democrats.

Ken Wheaton, managing editor ,Ìýa magazine that covers media and marketing issues.

At the moment, I wouldn’t see much need for the Obama campaign to spin this or to advertise too much around it. They’ll obviously use it as a fundraising appeal to the base. “We succeeded; we still need your help.” But widespread advertising around it risks angering independents and moderates he’ll need to win and who aren’t necessarily convinced of this. The Republicans and other groups have been spending and will continue to spend on advertising against this. It’s a great fundraiser for them too. If I had to guess, I’d bet that Romney or Republican Super PACs have an easy soundbite for a 30-second ad in which Obama declares that the individual mandate is not a tax countered by the ruling from the Supreme Court that declares that is indeed a tax.

Celinda Lake, president, ,Ìýa Democratic polling group.

ForÌý Obama: You’re in control of the conversation now. I would now turn back to the economy and also frame Romney in terms of the economy. We now have a chance to move the conversation. This is the law. This is the plan. This is how it affects you. We have an opportunity to move this from a political issue to a consumer issue. We also have an opportunity to shift from defense to offense. And our best offense is that Republicans want to cut traditional Medicare and provide tax breaks to millionaires.

For Romney: I think he’s in a tough place and he’s done the best he could. First, he’s characterized it as a tax increase – which it is not. Second, he’s turned it back to the economy. I think he’s made a big mistake, though, in embracing the call for repeal from the House. Only 24 percent of people want to repeal the law entirely. People don’t want to start all over on this. It’s much better for him to promote repeal and replace, but he’s embraced repeal immediately.

,Ìýfounding partner of Goddard Gunster and chairman of Goddard Global. Goddard is an expert on advocacy advertising and launched the “Harry and Louise” ads opposing the Clinton administration plans for a health overhaul.

The problem, and I think the reason why a lot of Americans have been uncomfortable with so-called Obamacare, is because they didn’t understand, or didn’t think there was anything in there for them. Making the case that “this means you’ll always be able to get insurance, this means your kids can be covered until they’re 26, this means the insurance companies can’t raise your rates or put a cap on your benefits,” that’s the message that Democrats need to pump out there.

Republicans have a very narrow window.Ìý If they’re going to get traction on the idea that it may be constitutional, but it’s a bad law, they’ve got to make that case closely and quickly.Ìý I think some congressional Republicans have been doing that; I’m not sure that Mitt Romney has been.Ìý On the flip side of that, I think the president has got from now until November to make his case, and I think as people start to focus … [on] what the heck it means for American families, it’s likely support for it is going to grow.Ìý And if they really want to stop it, Republicans need to act very, very quickly.

David B. Kendall, senior fellow for health and fiscal policy at ÌýThird Way is a Washington-based think tank aimed at implementing centrist policies.

For Obama:Ìý Simply put, deflect the lies about the president’s health care law and pivot to benefits.Ìý The reason:Ìý Most people feel they don’t have enough info to make a judgment about the law.Ìý People don’t want spin—don’t sell it, explain it.

For Romney:Ìý He’s got a hard time getting away from the mandate.Ìý He should explain why his proposal for president is different from what he enacted as governor of Massachusetts.

Joe Trippi, founder and president of , a media consultant who has helped a number of Democratic candidates.

The reality is that all the early polling suggests that people don’t want to keep fighting. ÌýThe president is right on his message of not fighting. ÌýIn many ways, Republicans seem to be more the obstructionists, and people don’t want to go back and keep relitigating. ÌýOne of the problems is that Romney doesn’t want to embrace the obstructionist image. ÌýImage-wise, it’s bad if 57 perecent of people don’t want to keep fighting. ÌýThe president should keep trying to move on and focus on jobs.

Interestingly, there is a divergence between Romney and House Republicans. ÌýWhat is good for a House Republican’s reelection campaign may not be what is good for Romney’s. ÌýIn 2010, the Republicans scored their gains in the HouseÌýby saying [Democrats] voted for the large tax increase in the health care bill. ÌýHouse Republicans may want to play 2010 all over again.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/marketing-mavens-offer-advice-on-handling-health-law-messaging/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Health care spending is growing significantly faster for children than for adults, and a new report finds thatÌýthat’s largely because of price increases.

From 2007Ìýthrough 2010, per capita spending for children covered by an employer-sponsored plan increased 18.6 percent to slightly more than $2,100 a year. Also during the four years, the average cost of an outpatient visit increased more than a third, as did the average cost of an emergency room visit.

The findings come from a by the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit group with access to claims data from three of the nation’s largest insurers – Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare. The combined claims data covers about 20 percent of all people under age 65 with employer coverage. An earlier HCCI report showedÌý for patients of all ages.

The majority of U.S. children, estimated at 41.4 million in 2010,Ìýare coveredÌýthroughÌýemployer-sponsored insurance.

Authors of the latest report note several areas for concern in addition to price increases. Children’s use of mental health and substance abuse services jumped nearly 24 percent. Prescriptions for antidepressants and similar psychiatric drugs rose more than 10 percent, and in 2010, children age 14 to 18 each had at least one prescription, on average.

“Children tend to use less expensive health care, so a bump in children’s health care spending is troubling because it could indicate that kids are getting sicker or receiving unnecessary tests or excess procedures,” HCCI Governing Board Chairman Martin Gaynor said in a prepared statement. “The data on spending for mental health and substance abuse services is particularly worrying.”

Other interesting findings:

— Overall prescription drug use by children dropped slightly between 2007 and 2010, but use of cardiovascular drugs and hormones both increased more than 20 percent.

— Babies and toddlers (under age 4) had the highest per capita spending — $3,896 in 2010. Teenagers age 14 to 18 had the largest spending increase — 22.3 percent between 2007 and 2010.

— Per capita spending on children was lowest in the West and highest in the Northeast in 2010. There was a $311 annual difference between the two regions.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/report-spending-on-childrens-care-rose-because-of-higher-prices/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“3.1 million [young adults] now have valuable protections for their finances and their health, and only the law can guarantee those protections,” said Richard Kronick, a deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. In recent weeks, several insurers made to maintain under-26 coverage, regardless of the Supreme Court’s health law decision.

Beginning in September 2010, the law required insurers to cover dependents under the age of 26, allowing many children to stay on their if they didn’t have coverage available through an employer.

Tuesday’s from the National Center for Health Statistics finds that the percentage of covered adults age 19 to 25 increased from 64.4 percent in September 2010 to 74.8 percent in December 2011. This 10 percentage-point jump in 15 months translates to about 3.1 million young adults gaining coverage, according to an HHS .

“That kind of response in a short period of time is unprecedented,” Kronick said.

Previously, HHS that 2.5 million young adults gained coverage through June 2011. And , the Commonwealth Fund that roughly 6.6 million gained health insurance between November 2010 and November 2011.

The latter number, however, is based on a survey which asked whether young adults joined a parent’s plan. The federal survey instead asked whether they had coverage at the time, so it does not include the many young adults who were already insured and then switched to a parent’s plan.

“Gains in coverage were particularly large for young men,” the HHS report also notes. Coverage went up more than 14 points for men age 19 to 25.

According to Sara Collins, a vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, the data shows that young men have been incorrectly stereotyped as not wanting or seeking health care. “If they have affordable insurance options available, they’ll take advantage of them,” Collins added. ÌýYoung women continue to lead in insurance coverage, 77.5 versus 72.0 percent for young men.

This <a target="_blank" href="/news/obama-administration-finds-3-1-million-young-adults-gained-coverage-under-law/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This story was produced in collaboration with

College students and their families will have better options for health insurance in the upcoming school year, but there will be higher costs, too.

Undergraduate students typically stay on a parent’s plan or purchase a health plan through their school. Graduate students often also have those options. Many students choose the first option now that plans are required by the 2010 health law to cover children up to age 26. An estimatedÌý joined a parent’s plan through June 2011, according to a .

Insurers responded to this requirement by slightly raising their prices. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the under-26 rule led to a 0.9 percent increase in group plan premiums last year. In addition, some insurers have changed their pricing structure, which is likely to lead to higher costs for families.

College health plans, which often kept prices down by offering skimpy benefits, are also expected to become more costly as they accommodate the . A few schools have had their prices rise so much that they have decided to drop their health plans altogether.

These changes complicate insurance shopping for students and their parents. Just as prices vary, sometimes sharply, so do benefits. “As premiums go up in all [insurance] markets, people are going to need to look at all their options,” said Kevin Lucia, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. Aside from parent and college health plans, students can purchase an individual plan, but that’s done only rarely.

College Health Plans

Student plans work much like other forms of health insurance, with services often available on and off campus.

Starting this year, the health law requires many student plans to meet applied to policies sold by insurers to individuals, including coverage of a set of preventive services without a co-pay and a phased-in ban on annual dollar limits, which many plans previously used to keep prices down.Ìý

are raising their premiums as much as 50 percent to comply with the new law’s requirements for coverage, according to Stephen Beckley, a student insurance consultant and co-organizer of the Lookout Mountain Group, an organization of college health professionals. Right now, prices of those skimpy plans are typically $400 to $620 per year.

In contrast, plans with more generous benefits are increasing their premiums less than 3 percent in some cases, Beckley said. Typically, these plans cost $1,700 to $1,900.

The health law regulations bolster student plans, Beckley and others agreed, but they don’t necessarily provide excellent coverage.

“Compared to what some students experienced before with student plans, these are better protections,” said Sara Collins, a vice president of the Commonwealth Fund. But many plans still have low lifetime dollar limits, and some of the 2010 law’s requirements won’t take full effect for a couple more years, she added. In the interim, plans that don’t comply fully need only provide a written notice to potential purchasers.

With plenty of variation still in the market, Beckley suggests asking a school if its student plan follows standards set by the American College Health Association. The , which Beckley helped write, recommend that school plans cover preventive services, psychotropic medications, catastrophic situations and more.

Family Plans
Many families might see a parent’s plan as the default option. The premium for a family plan typically covers all dependents for one price, so the inclusion of a student makes little if any difference.

In 2011, the average annual premium for a family of four insured through an employer was about $15,000, with the employee paying about $4,100 of the total, according to a survey by the . (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Several changes in the market, however, might make this route less attractive.

Some insurers have revamped their pricing structures, charging per member for family coverage rather than the usual flat rate. It isn’t a new phenomenon, but these “unitized premiums” are becoming more common, according to Craig Rosenberg, a national practice leader for benefits manager Aon Hewitt. Some see this approach as more equitable, given how families can vary in the number of children and associated health-care costs.

In another pricing change, insurers are moving away from a single deductible for the whole family and opting for a separate deductible for each family member.

As a result, families may reconsider putting a child on their insurance plan, experts say. Despite the expectation that the up-to-26 provision would trigger a significant drop in student plan enrollment, numbers suggest otherwise. In interviews, UnitedHealthcare and Aetna reported steady enrollment in their student plans, as did a number of schools, including the University of Texas and University of California systems.

Experts say the increasing cost of family coverage may make student insurance seem like more of a bargain.

“I had parents tell me, ‘This is a heck of a deal,’ ” said Ron Brummett, director of student services at the Colorado School o Mines, which had an 11 percent increase in plan enrollment this past fall. The School of Mines charged about $1,600 per ear for its health plan, although the premium varies depending on the student’s age.

Families also might purchase student plans because they have broader choices of doctors and hospitals near the school. Some parents might be worried that they’ll lose their employer-based coverage or see it deteriorate as companies hold down spending.

If the health law is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,Ìýthere could soon be more options for student health insurance.

In 2014, Medicaid will expand to individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. At the same time, people with higher incomes may be eligible for subsidies on state health insurance exchanges. These subsidies might apply to student plans.

Students’ eligibility for a subsidy will depend on income and whether they’re claimed as dependents on family tax returns, Collins said. Medicaid eligibility for a student is more complex and depends on household income, which could be affected by a student’s age and whether he or she lives at home, as well as by individual state rules.

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/student-health-plans/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">