Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) benefits standards will be different for plans at large employers than they are for individual policies and plans at small employers.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) talks about what the standards for large employers might look like in a new set of draft regulations, “Minimum Value of Eligible Employer-Sponsored Plans and Other Rules Regarding the Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit” (RIN 1545-BL43).

Employers with more than 50 employees — or 100 employees in some states — will have a lot more freedom than smaller employers when they’re designing their health plans. But, if large employers simply want to offer a plan that they know will help them avoid paying the new PPACA penalties on employers that fail to provide health benefits with a “minimum value,” they could base their plans on one of several “safe harbor” designs that the IRS will develop, the IRS said in a preamble to the draft regulations.

In the proposed regulations, the IRS also talks about value calculation rules that could affect employers’ health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), health savings account (HSA) and wellness programs.

The draft regulations are set to appear in the Federal Register Friday. Comments will be due 60 days after the official publication date.

PPACA

PPACA is supposed to create a new tax credit, to help low-income workers who have no group health coverage pay health insurance premiums.

Workers will be able to get the tax credit — which is described in Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) — if they have no group health coverage or low-value group health coverage. Workers will not be able to qualify for the tax credit if they have access to what the government classifies as affordable group health coverage that meets the PPACA minimum-value standard.

In some cases, workers who have group health benefits may still try to apply for the premium assistance tax credit.

If the worker turns out to have access only to low-value group health benefits, the worker will qualify for the tax credit, and the employer may have to pay a penalty. If the worker turns out to have access to minimum-value health benefits, the employer will avoid having to pay the penalty.

IRC Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) states that an employer plan that meets the minimum-value standard must cover at least 60 percent of the “total allowed costs.”

PPACA also has created a standardized “essential health benefits” (EHB) package. The package is supposed to include the benefits that a normal good small-group health plan covers, along with some extras required by Congress, such as dental benefits and eye benefits for children.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has said that it will assume that “total allowed costs” means the cost of covering the standard EHB package for the type of people who would be in a typical self-insured employer health plan.

But, in theory, as long as a large employer’s plan covers 60 percent of the value of the overall cost of the EHB package, the plan need not actually cover all of the kinds of care included in the EHB package to meet the minimum-value standard, the IRS said.

But what should the large employer’s plan really cover?

The IRS has come up with three sample plan designs that large employers could use to meet the minimum-value standard:

• A plan with a $3,500 integrated medical and drug deductible, 80 percent plan cost-sharing, and a $6,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit for employee cost-sharing.
• A plan with a $4,500 integrated medical and drug deductible, 70 percent plan cost-sharing, a $6,400 maximum out-of-pocket limit, and a $500 employer contribution to a health savings account (HSA).
• A plan with a $3,500 medical deductible, $0 drug deductible, 60 percent plan medical expense cost-sharing, 75 percent plan drug cost-sharing, a $6,400 maximum out-of-pocket limit, and drug co-pays of $10/$20/$50 for the first, second and third prescription drug tiers, with 75 percent coinsurance for specialty drugs.

To qualify for safe-habor treatment, the plans would have to cover the services that the IRS and HHS have included in a minimum-value calculator that the IRS and HHS have posted on the Web, the IRS said.

Low-value plans

The IRS suggested what it sees as a possible problem: A large employer might offer a low-value health plan, then try to get out of paying PPACA “no minimum-value health plan” penalties by keeping employees from applying for the premium assistance tax credit.

If an employer did that, regulators “may treat such arrangements as impermissible interference with an employee’s ability to access premium tax credits,” the IRS said.

HRAs, HSAs and wellness programs

IRS officials also consider other minimum-value quirks, such as how employers ought to handle HRA and HSA contributions in plan value calculations, and how employers ought to treat wellness program incentives that could either cut cost-sharing amounts (deductibles and co-payments) or help reduce employees’ share of the health insurance premiums.

Some commenters have suggested that all employer HSA or HRA contributions for the current year should count as plan value when an employer is trying to calculate a health plan’s value.

Other commenters agreed that HSA contributions should count toward plan value, but they said that HRA contributions should count only if the employees can use the HRA contributions to help cover the cost of co-payments, deductibles and coinsurance amounts.

In the draft regulations, the IRS has proposed that an employer can include all HSA contributions for the current plan year in minimum-value calculations.

“Amounts newly made available under an HRA that is integrated with an eligible employer-sponsored plan for the current plan year count for purposes of [minimum value] in the same manner if the amounts may be used only for cost-sharing and may not be used to pay insurance premiums,” officials said.

At least for 2014, the IRS has proposed setting one minimum-value rule for wellness programs with incentives that lower cost-sharing amounts (co-payments and deductibles) and a second rule for wellness programs with incentives that lower the amount workers pay for group health insurance plan premiums.

If an anti-tobacco-use incentive lowers cost-sharing amounts, an employer can ignore the effect of the incentive program on workers who love their cigarettes or cigars too much to qualify for the incentive.

When adjusting for the value of other wellness program cost-sharing incentives, the employer must assume workers will fail to qualify and determine whether the coverage of the workers who fail still meets the minimum-value standard.

If any wellness incentive program, except for an anti-tobaco program, cuts the worker’s share of the health insurance premiums, then the employer must assume that all workers will fail to qualify for the premium-reduction incentive when calculating whether the plan is affordable, officials said.

But, in 2014, when a large-group employer is determining whether it must pay a penalty for failing to meet the PPACA “shared responsibility” coverage mandate requirements, the employer can assume that all employees will qualify for wellness incentives when determining whether the health plan is affordable.

Article reposted from LifeHealthPro.com.

Federal regulators on Wednesday released model notices that employers can provide to employees to satisfy a federal health care reform law requirement that employees be notified about the availability of public health insurance exchanges.

Among other things, the notices from the U.S. Department of Labor — one for employers who offer a health plan to some or all employees, and one for employers who do not offer a health plan — explain how exchanges will operate, and that certain conditions will have to be satisfied for employees to obtain federal premium subsidies to purchase exchange-provided coverage.

Much to the relief of employers, they will not have to provide contact information for the exchanges. Instead, they can give a link in the notice to a Department of Health and Human Services website, www.healthcare.gov, that has such information.

“That is very good news,” said Rich Stover, a principal with Buck Consultants L.L.C. in Secaucus, N.J. Employers had been concerned about the possibility that they would have had to provide contact information for all 50 public exchanges.

Employers must distribute the notices, which are available at www.dol.gov/ebsa, prior to Oct. 1, 2013. Exchange policies will be effective Jan. 1, 2014.

Article reposted from BusinessInsurance.com.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will help millions of people get coverage for the first time, but the new health insurance tax, costly benefit requirements and age rating restrictions will drive up the cost of coverage for many consumers and employers. When this happens, many younger and healthier Americans could decide not to get coverage, which would further drive up costs for everyone else.

It’s time to focus on affordability.

January 1, 2014 Reforms

The broad market reforms outlined in the ACA take effect on January 1, 2014. Individuals and families purchasing insurance in the individual market will be guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, and their premiums cannot vary based on their gender or medical history. There will also be subsidies to help consumers afford the cost of coverage, and new state-based health insurance exchanges will help consumers find the policies that best meet their needs.

At the same time, other provisions take effect that will significantly increase the cost of coverage for millions of individuals, families, and small businesses:

Health Insurance Tax

The ACA imposes a new $100 billion sales tax on health insurance that will add to the cost of coverage for people purchasing coverage on their own, small employers, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, and Medicaid managed care programs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that this tax will be “largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums.” An analysis by Oliver Wyman estimates that this tax alone “will increase premiums in the insured market on average by 1.9% to 2.3% in 2014,” and by 2023 “will increase premiums 2.8% to 3.7%.”

An updated report by Oliver Wyman, “Annual Tax on Insurers Allocated by State,” estimates the impact this tax will have on individual market consumers, employers, and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in all 50 states, as well as the impact on state Medicaid managed care programs.

Restrictions on Age Rating

The ACA strictly limits how much premiums can vary based on a person’s age, which will result in significantly higher premiums for younger individuals and families. This increases the likelihood that younger, healthier people will choose to wait to purchase health insurance until after they get sick or injured, thus driving up costs for everyone else.

A new study by Oliver Wyman found that age rating restrictions will increase premiums 42 percent for people aged 21 to 29 and 31 percent for people aged 30 to 39.

Minimum Essential Health Benefits

All health insurance policies sold in the individual market and to small employers will be required to cover a broad range of mandated benefits, many of which are not included in some policies today. As a result, millions of people will be required to “buy up” and purchase health insurance that is far more costly than they currently have. The CBO found that premiums would increase because policies “would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits.”

Rising Health Care Costs

Any increase in premiums as a result of the ACA will be on top of the unsustainable rise in underlying medical costs. Soaring medical costs are driving up the cost of coverage, taking up a greater share of federal and state budgets, and threatening the long-term solvency of our nation’s public safety net programs. While the ACA takes a number of preliminary, but promising, steps toward reforming the delivery system, much more needs to be done to control health care cost growth.

To help shine a spotlight on medical cost drivers, AHIP recently released a new iPad app that consolidates fifty years of federal health care spending data into a series of easy-to-use, interactive charts. App users can view historical and projected health care spending data at the national level, state-by-state, on a per capita basis, or as a percent of GDP. The app also provides a detailed breakdown of how much the nation is spending on different aspects of the health care system, such as hospital care, physician services, prescription drugs, and health plan administrative costs, and how each of these components contributes to health care cost growth.

Health plans are leading efforts to reform the payment and delivery system by partnering with providers to reward quality care, promoting prevention and wellness, and helping patients and physicians manage chronic disease. These initiatives have demonstrated results in better health outcomes, improved patient safety, fewer preventable hospital readmissions, and lower health care costs.

Frequently Asked Questions

How will premiums be impacted?

Families and employers currently have broad flexibility to purchase the coverage that best meets their specific health care and financial needs. The impact the ACA will have on their premium depends entirely on the type and amount of coverage they have today. For example, a person who currently has comprehensive coverage through their employer will not see the same impact on their premium as someone with individual market coverage who has chosen to purchase a low-premium, high-deductible plan that provides coverage for catastrophic health care costs.

An analysis by Aon Hewitt on the impact of the ACA reforms that have already taken effect found that “the impact of these changes on health care cost is likely to be highly variable, with disparate impacts being seen across different lines of business and different health plans.”

Simply looking at the average increase does not tell the whole story about what these changes may mean for a particular individual or employer.

What about subsidies?

The ACA provides premium and cost-sharing subsidies to help low- and moderate-income Americans purchase insurance. Subsidies will clearly help many families pay for health care coverage, but subsidies will do nothing to bring down the actual cost of that coverage. Suggesting that they will is comparable to saying that Pell Grants reduce the cost of college tuition. Pell Grants enormously help families afford the high cost of education, but they do not lower tuition levels. Meanwhile, tuition prices soar.

Importantly, according to the CBO, millions of people are not eligible for subsidies and the amount of the subsidy declines significantly as incomes rise. The CBO states that more than 40 percent of people purchasing coverage in the individual market today would be ineligible for premium subsidies. Individuals with incomes between 250-300 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) would receive subsidies sufficient to cover 42 percent of the cost of the second lowest-cost “silver” plan while those with incomes between 350-400 percent of the FPL would receive subsidies sufficient to cover just 13 percent of the premium. Moreover, due to how the subsidies are indexed, CBO states that over time “the shares of the premiums that the subsidies cover will decline.”

Doesn’t the individual mandate solve the problem of people waiting until they are sick to buy coverage?

Starting on January 1, 2014, individuals and families purchasing insurance in the individual market will be guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, and their premiums cannot vary based on their gender or medical history. The ACA also includes a requirement that all Americans carry health insurance. The individual mandate is intended to reduce the incentive for people to wait to purchase coverage until after they are sick or injured, which would unfairly penalize everyone with insurance. Yet many experts question whether the coverage requirement will be sufficient to encourage younger and healthier people to take up coverage, especially when they are faced with significantly higher costs due to the health insurance tax, benefit mandates, and rating restrictions included in the ACA. In fact, the penalty for failing to carry insurance in 2014 will be as low as $95 – far below the cost of purchasing insurance.

What about health plan administrative costs and profits?

Health plans’ administrative costs and profits are sometimes cited as a reason why premiums are rising. The evidence clearly contradicts this unfounded claim. Health plan profits account for less than one penny out of every dollar spent on health care. Further, government data show that last year the portion of premiums allocated to health plans’ administrative costs was the second lowest in the last nine years, even though health plans have been incurring new compliance and regulatory costs related to the health care reform law.

Moreover, despite evidence that medical costs are driving premium increases, the ACA imposes a new arbitrary federal cap on health plans’ administrative costs and profits (referred to as the “Medical Loss Ratio”) and establishes a new federal rate review process on top of existing state laws and regulations governing premiums. To make health care coverage more affordable for families and employers, the focus needs to be on all of the factors driving premium increases, including soaring medical costs, changes in the risk pool, and new taxes, benefit mandates and regulations.

Article reposted from AHIP.org.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday assured yet another congressional panel that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exchanges will be opening on schedule.

“We are moving ahead,” Sebelius said at a House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee hearing on the HHS fiscal year 2014 budget request. “We are definitely going to be open for open enrollment starting Oct. 1 of 2013.”

Federal fiscal year 2014 will start Oct. 1.

Sebelius has given similar assurances about progress at the HHS PPACA exchange development program at HHS budget hearings organized by the Senate Finance Committee’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee and at the House Ways and Means Committee.

PPACA calls for HHS to work with state regulators to start exchanges, or health insurance supermarkets for individuals and small groups.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., suggested at the HELP hearing Wednesday that it looks as if the exchange program may be headed for a “train wreck.”

Congress has provided only $1 billion of the $10 billion that analysts originally said HHS would need to set up the exchange program, Sebelius said.

“We’ve judiciously used those resources,” and efforts to set up the “Hub,” the data center and call center to be at the heart of the exchange system, are going well, Sebelius said.

HHS will transfer money from prevention programs to fund exchange education and enrollment efforts, Sebelius said.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., said Sebelius should speak more frankly about the funding obstacles that Republicans have put in the way of PPACA implementation.

“They can’t come back and criticize if the outreach doesn’t occur if they’re not funding it,” Pallone said.

Republicans on the subcommittee asked whether Sebelius really has to use prevention fund money to pay for PPACA exchange outreach programs.

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, a medical doctor, asked Sebelius about the HHS decision to abruptly suspend enrollment in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program, a health insurance program for uninsured people with health problems that make buying medically underwritten coverage difficult.

He referred to a woman with lymphoma who said she learned HHS had shut down the PCIP program the day before she had been about to submit her application.

“Is it Obamacare or Obamadon’tcare?” Burgess asked. “Rather than spending [prevention fund money] on advertising for a program that may not even work on Oct. 1, or Jan. 1, why should we not transfer money from that fund to actually help the people that you promised to help — the people with pre-existing conditions?”

Sebelius said Americans like the woman with lymphoma will benefit greatly starting Jan. 1, 2014, because, after that date, “no American will ever again be locked out of a health program because of a pre-existing condition.”

PCIP was always supposed to be a temporary program, not a permanent solution, and it would not exist if the Republicans had succeeded with their many efforts to repeal PPACA, Sebelius said.

At another point, an exchange between Sebelius and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., the chairman of the health subcommittee, hinted at the problems that even members of Congress and their staffers may be having with keeping up with PPACA implementation details.

Pitts asked why the PPACA exchanges would not give small businesses a choice of health plans in 2014.

Sebelius had to explain that HHS has decided to let the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) small-group exchanges put off giving employers a chance to offer employees a multi-carrier coverage option.

Each SHOP exchange will still offer the employers themselves a chance to choose from a menu that includes plans from all of the carriers that have agreed to sell plans through that exchange, Sebelius said.

Article reposted from BenefitsPro.com.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) endeavors to help millions of Americans obtain medical insurance. Some supporters are compelled by compassion, others by business interest, but the idea of helping more people get insured is now widely supported. However, federal regulations have introduced what appears to be a significant disconnect between the intent to cover everyone and the employment regulations that will determine whether lower wage workers can actually afford coverage.

Low wage families will be looking for the most affordable coverage options for the entire family. If income is low enough, the entire family may be eligible for Medicaid in some states. Under Medicaid, the family may have no monthly premium cost, and out-of-pocket costs would be nominal. However, if the family is above the Medicaid and/or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) eligibility thresholds, private coverage may be the only option. So will anyone subsidize private coverage for families that are above Medicaid/CHIP income thresholds?

Either the employer or the government may help. Federal law encourages the employer to take the lead in premium support, but the law doesn’t require it. If the employer doesn’t offer some kind of coverage and employer contribution, an excise tax (employer penalty) may be applied except with the small employers (less than 50 full-time equivalent employees) as they are exempt. As a fallback, the government is offering advanced premium tax credits (APTC) to the worker and/or family members who cannot access “affordable” coverage at work. But what is “affordable,” and how does the affordability standard apply to a family?

As a fallback, the government is offering advanced premium tax credits (APTC) to the worker and/or family members who cannot access “affordable” coverage at work. But what is “affordable,” and how does the affordability standard apply to a family?

Group coverage is deemed affordable (for purposes of eligibility for the APTC) if the “single only” coverage is available to a worker at a cost less than 9.5% of the employee’s household income. Employers must offer coverage to dependents (recently defined as children, not a spouse) to avoid employer penalties, but the employer is not required or expected to pay for dependent coverage. As a result, many low wage workers will end up in a situation where the employer pays toward employee-only group coverage, while offering dependent coverage on the worker’s dime. Because dependent coverage (which is deemed affordable even though it may not be) is available to the worker’s family through the group plan, the family members are not eligible for APTC help from the government if applying for coverage in the public exchange. At the end of the day, many workers will be unable to afford the cost of family coverage at work and will leave their dependents uninsured.

An unintended consequence may arise in the labor market. If the large employer does not pay a substantial portion (in my opinion, at least a majority) of the family coverage for low wage workers, the employee will eventually figure out that the only way to get financial assistance to cover their dependent children will be to find work with an employer that does not offer “affordable” coverage. This will probably lead to an incentive for low wage employers to either drop group coverage, or “engineer” the employee-only cost of the group plan to be more that 9.5% of W-2 wages for low wage workers.

In either case, the large employer will pay a penalty, and the employee may remain eligible for APTC financial assistance in the public exchange for himself and any dependents.

Engineering the single-only cost of the group plan to something exceeding 9.5% of W-2 wages may end up making the most sense for the employer. The corporation is able to indirectly leverage the APTC to make sure family members are covered since employees could waive group coverage and take the government subsidies instead. The employer’s excise tax (employer penalty) won’t deter this strategy as the penalty will be comparable to what the employer would have spent on single-only coverage.

The downside will be the challenges that employer may have with participation requirements on the group plan, which may be imposed either by the carrier based on market rules (for fully insured plans), or by Treasury guidance. IRC 105(h) imposes certain discrimination rules on group health plans in order for those plans to remain tax advantaged, and part of the forthcoming rules from the Treasury may include certain group participation thresholds. If participation requirements for group plans prevent the “engineered” strategy of pushing lower wage people away from the group plan and into the public exchange, many low wage employers may drop their group plans out of necessity in order to recruit labor.

Article reposted from Bswift.com.

Congressional leaders from both parties are reportedly discussing ways that lawmakers and their aides can avoid having to participate in Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

According to Politico, the talks involving the White House, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other congressional leaders have been going on for months and are extremely sensitive, given the potential for political fallout.

The talks were apparently prompted by concerns on Capitol Hill that the provision in the law requiring lawmakers and congressional staffers to join the exchanges could cost them thousands of dollars in new healthcare costs, which could force many staffers to leave their government jobs in search of higher-paying employment.

Various proposals have reportedly been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, which will administer the benefits and decide whether and how lawmakers and their staffs will be covered. One proposal exempts lawmakers and their aides, while another exempts staff members only, reports Politico.

Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, told Politico that the speaker’s goal is “to spare the entire country from the ravages of the president’s healthcare law,” explaining, “He is approached daily by American citizens, including members of Congress and staff, who want to be freed from its mandates.”

“If the speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he will,” added Steel.

But by excusing themselves from a key component of the controversial 2010 Affordable Care Act, leaders on Capitol Hill could face a backlash from both the public and other politicians.

Congress already is taking heat from the public over the sequester and other issues. By writing themselves and exemption to Obamacare, Politico noted that lawmakers could be seen as holding themselves to a different standard than the people who elected them.

Article reposted from Newsmax.com.

You have to obtain the right IN insurance policy so that you can enjoy its benefits.  Not all insurance policies are the same.  It is very important that you have to check its coverage.  If you have a health condition then make sure that it is covered on the policy.

Now, doctors have found a new way of measuring pain through brain scans.  For the first time, in a new study the scientists have discovered that the pain of the patient can be seen through brain scans.  This is also a way of measuring the intensity of the pain and at the same time if the medication really works in relieving it.  Although this research is still in its initial stage but the researchers have already seen a lot of potential possibilities.  For instance, these brain scans can be used in identifying if the baby, a paralyzed person or a person with dementia is feeling pain.  This discovery can also result to new medicines which are less addictive.  It can also help in checking for disability claims.

According to the lead author, Tor Wager, this is a way of proving if a person is really in pain.  If there are some doubts then this is the way to confirm it.  The findings in this research can be found in the Journal of Medicine.  However, this study only applies to pain which are felt on the skin such as if heat is applied to the body.  More studies are needed on other types of pain such as backaches, headaches or pains resulting from diseases.  Pain is the major reason why a lot of people are visiting their doctors.

An IN insurance policy is very important, that is why you have to start searching for it at http://www.group-insurance.net/.  If you need some assistance then you can always call us at (260) 484-7010.

Finding the most affordable Indiana insurance plans can be accomplished on the internet.  There are many insurers who offer different plans, making it possible for you to easily find a plan that suits your needs.  You can do your research right from your own home or office by using your PC or laptop and the internet.  Various studies performed around the world alert each of us to the necessity and benefits of health insurance.

Obesity is the common cause of various diseases, which include rectal cancer or colon cancer.  However, a new study reveals that there is more risk if an obese patient will undergo a weight-loss surgery.  Researchers studied over 77,000 obese patients and found out that those who have undergone obesity surgery have greater risk of acquiring colorectal cancer.  But, the researchers suggest that people who want to go under the knife should not depend on these results.  According to Dr. Jesper Lagergren, the lead author of the study, these results should not be used as the basis for making a decision since further studies needs to be done in order to confirm it.  Every year, there are over 100,000 Americans who are using surgery in treating obesity.

Based on the report of Lagergren and his team, obese people have the greater risk of acquiring different types of cancers such as prostate cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer.  But it is still uncertain if obesity surgery can really affect these risks.  Two previous studies have revealed that the possibility of acquiring cancer related to obesity has declined after a patient has undergone a weight-loss surgery.  But the study conducted by Lagergren and his team revealed that obesity surgery will not affect the risks for prostate cancer and breast cancer but it can increase the risk for colorectal cancer.

If you are searching for affordable Indiana insurance plans then you can acquire quotes at http://www.group-insurance.net/.  You can also talk to our agents at (260) 484-7010.

For those people who are planning to buy Indiana group health insurance policies, they have to do some research in order to know more about the plans.  You have to familiarize yourself with the terminologies that are being used in these insurance policies.  Know more about the prices that are offered for each policy.

The factor that triggered lung cancer is HPV, according to a new research.  They tested the tissue samples of patients who are non-smokers and they found out that HPV is the one that is causing the tumors.  HPV is a virus that is common to head cancers, cervical cancers and neck cancers.  Now, the researchers have discovered that it can also cause lung cancer.  After testing the tissue samples of lung cancer patients, they found out that at least 6% have shown that it is triggered by HPV or human papillomavirus which can commonly cause cancer.

In order to effectively treat these tumors, further understanding should be made.  According to the lead author of the study, Ranee Mehra, therapies should be targeted to the particular characteristics of HPV which are causing lung cancer in some patients.  Based on the studies conducted in Asia, tumors which caused lung cancer are being infected with HPV.  Mehra explains that this can only make sense because the lungs can be found near the neck and the head, which are at risk if exposed to HPV.  In order to investigate further, Mehra and her team studied the tissue samples of non-smoker patients who are diagnosed with lung cancer.  According to Mehra, they are using non-smokers because smoking is usually the cause of lung cancer.

We can help you find the best Indiana group health insurance policies.  Just call our agents at (260) 484-7010 or visit us at http://www.group-insurance.net/ for further details and information.

Knowing where to obtain competitive IN insurance quotes is very important especially now that the costs of medical expenses have skyrocketed. You have to make a lot of research in order to find the best quote. If you need some help, then you can always ask an insurance agent to help you.

A new research proves that patients who are suffering from knee osteoarthritis (OA) should wear flexible and flat shoes so that the load of their knee can be reduced. The results in this study can also be found on the journal for Arthritis & Rheumatism. According to the researchers, by using these mobility shoes, OA patients can get accustomed on how they are going to walk which can enhance knee loading even if they are no longer wearing their mobility shoes.

There are over 27 million Americans who are suffering from OA which is usually caused by stiffness and painful swelling on the various joints of the body such as knee, foot, hand, hip or hip. In 2006, Hootman and his team conducted a study, and they estimated that over 67 million Americans will be suffering from arthritis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC also projected that about 16% adults who are 45 years old and over are suffering from OA.

In prior studies conducted by Dr. Najia Shakoor and her team, they found out that walking with ‘mobility shoes are just the same with walking on barefoot which can reduce knee loading. This is much better compared to walking with the use of regular shoes. However, the researchers suggest that further studies should be made in order to evaluate its long term effects.

If you want to get the best IN insurance quotes, then you should visit us at http://www.group-insurance.net/. To know more about the plans that we offer, just call us at (260) 484-7010.