Get out of that tanning bed!

When summer comes along, many people just can’t resist lying out in the sun to develop a deep, golden tan. Now, the summer tan is no longer limited to the summertime. The rise of the tanning bed, coupled with the idealization of tanned bodies from shows like the Jersey Shore, has led people—mostly women—to tan year round. Tanning, whether out in the sun or in an indoor tanning bed, can have harmful consequences. Here are the top seven reasons for you to quit tanning once and for all.

1.      Tanning—especially in tanning beds—can actually be habit forming and at worst, addictive. Research has shown that tanning is often habit forming, and some people show behaviors similar to drug and alcohol addicts. In a study reported by ABC News back in April, researchers found that between 30 and 40 percent of individuals who used tanning beds demonstrated the psychiatric diagnostic indicators for addiction.  Some “tanorexics” just can’t stop tanning no matter what they try, while others miss social opportunities just to tan.

1. Melanoma, the most dangerous type of skin cancer, is highly linked to exposure to UV rays. Both tanning beds and the sun produce UVA and UVB rays, and overexposure to UV rays can cause cancer. In particular, melanoma is one of the most common cancers affecting young people, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.

3.      Ultraviolet rays also cause premature aging of the skin. Yes, that means wrinkles.  UV rays break down the collagen in your skin. Collagen keeps your face smooth and wrinkle-free. Do you really want to risk turning your skin into leather just to keep up a Snooki-esque tan?

4.      Proponents of tanning have argued that exposure to sunlight and tanning bed light generates Vitamin D, which may be able to reduce the risk of certain cancers.  However, a recent study showed that high levels of vitamin D weren’t necessarily linked to reduced risk in cancer.

5.      Overexposure to the sun can also damage the DNA in your skin, leading to increased risk of skin cancer.  Tanning bulbs also prevent your body from repairing the damaged DNA, another factor that may increase cancer risks.

6.      Anyways, soaking up the sun is not the only way to increase Vitamin D intake.  Alternative sources include fish, cheese, and fortified foods like milk, as well as vitamin D supplements. Limited exposure to the sun is a good thing, but baking in tanning beds and burning in sunlight is not a good way to obtain Vitamin D.

7.      Not only does tanning hurt your health, but it can also hurt your wallet.  If you choose to tan in a tanning salon, by default you must pay for services. Add in expensive tanning lotions meant to enhance your tan. By the time you factor in the 10% tanning tax that starts July 1^st 2010, you’ve made a sizeable dent in your wallet.

The Situation with tanning does not look promising. “Fake-n-bake” tanning and sunbathing alike can be very harmful to your wallet, and most importantly, your health. If you’re not willing to cut down on your tanning habits, consider at least reducing your time under the heat lamps. If you prefer to brown outside, wear sunscreen to protect your skin. Follow Lindsay Lohan’s lead—this is probably the only time you’ll ever be told to listen to Lohan—and use sunless tanning products. Self-tanners and spray tans can give you that golden glow without harming your health.

In another one of my blogs, I outlined the reasons why you should quit tanning once and for all. I mainly focused on the health risks associated with tanning, including skin cancer and premature aging. One important new tax to know about is the tan tax, a tax on indoor tanning services that began on July 1 2010.

A tax on indoor tanning will help pay for healthcare reform

To fund the 2010 Affordable Care act, the federal government will now levy a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning, which started on July 1^st.  Spray tans and other sunless tanning products will not be taxed under the new legislation.  The tanning tax is expected to generate 2.7 billion dollars towards health care reform.  Dermatologists and other advocates hope that the tanning tax will dissuade people from baking their skin in indoor tanning beds.

Why tax tanning?

To begin with, countless dermatological studies have shown that tanning has a negative impact on the body. Exposure to UV rays damages the skin’s DNA, leaving people more than three times more likely to develop skin cancers like melanoma.  Although many skin cancers can be treatable, melanoma is the most deadly skin cancer—as well as the most common type of skin cancer found in young people. Indoor tanning beds can also contribute to premature aging of the skin, causing younger people to develop wrinkly or leathery looking skin. A young survivor of skin cancer who tanned in his youth even wants to ban tanning for minors because of health risks.

Initially, cosmetic surgery procedures were the victims of the tax—known as the “Botax” for the popular Botox procedure, until dermatologists successfully lobbied Congress to hit indoor tanning beds instead.

Still, tanning businesses fear that the new tax will put a damper on their fun in the sun. Before the 10% tax went into effect, many small businesses expressed their concern over the tax’s impact on business. Although tanning packages purchased at tanning salons will be exposed to the tax, health clubs that also feature tanning beds are exempt from the new legislation. One famous tanning salon patron, the Jersey Shore’s majestically orange Snooki, claimed that she would stop using tanning beds for good because of the tax, and use spray tan services instead. Other tanners said that the tax wouldn’t affect their tanning habits.

Other businesses claim that they have already noticed a drop off in sales. According to an article in the Washington Post, one tanning salon in Arlington, Virginia noticed a 20 to 30 percent drop off in business since the recession, and anticipated worse since the tanning tax went into effect July.  Then again, it is July, the height of beach season, when indoor fake n’ bake tanning really isn’t necessary, which could factor into that sales decline.

While time will tell how hard the tax will hit the tanning industry, I feel tanning salons should not be the only establishments subject to the tax.  By exempting fitness centers from taxation, the government is really squeezing the tanning industry. Still, the tax may serve as an additional incentive—including health—for people to stop tanning once and for all.

Ladies, it’s a fact that our health needs are different than those of men.  Due to our genetic make-up, there are many other health concerns that we must consider when choosing our health insurance plan.  The future is unpredictable, so it is important that we get coverage for all our current and potential future conditions.

Questions all women should ask about their health insurance coverage

1. Does my health insurance plan cover health screenings recommended annually for women?

It is recommended that women have annual mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and osteoporosis screenings beginning at a certain age.  There are others important annual tests, but these tests are specific to women. The law requires that health insurance companies offer coverage for one annual mammogram for women 40 and older to prevent breast cancer.  Most states mandate that insurance companies cover an annual cervical cancer screening, such as pap smears.  Also, health insurance companies are required to offer coverage for annual osteoporosis screenings since they are necessary for health maintenance.  Osteoporosis tests begin around age 60.

2. Does my health insurance company cover specialty doctor visits?

Most health insurance companies cover for your OB/GYN services.  But it is important to check your health insurance plan to see what costs and treatments are covered because some are excluded from insurance.  For example, sterilization is rarely covered by health insurance companies.

3. Will my pregnancy be covered by health insurance?

Today, the average cost of having a baby is over $6000. Health insurance companies will most often cover doctors office and hospital visit expenses (with a small co-payment).  But there’s a catch: you must have health insurance before you get pregnant! Women who are already pregnant are considered “high-risk” candidates and it will be much more difficult to get coverage.  Other things you may want to check with the insurance company is if they offer coverage for services during your pregnancy (associated with the pregnancy but not the typical office visits) and prescriptions for possible depression. Even if you don’t needs these, better safe than sorry!

4. What if I need infertility treatments? Is that covered?

Infertility insurance is limited, but you’re not out of luck.  There are 14 states with mandates for health insurance coverage of infertility treatments.  If infertility treatments are not specifically excluded form your insurance plan, you can get coverage.  If needed, get a copy of your plan from your health insurance provider.  Otherwise, infertility treatment coverage is also offered by private insurance companies.

5.  Does my health insurance cover all of my prescription drugs?

There are many prescription pills specifically for women, such as contraceptive pills.  Generally, contraceptives have not been covered by health insurance companies in their plan. But, each insurer is different.  It is important to ask your provider because they may offer contraceptive coverage.

6. Is there coverage for treatment against diseases common to women?

Women are at a higher risk for osteoporosis, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and many others.  It is important for women to take preventative measures in their healthcare as well as have insurance for their expenses.  Vaccines are common preventative measures, such as Gardasil, a vaccine to prevent HPV and cervical cancer.  Many insurance companies cover this preventative vaccine because it reduces the chance of future medical conditions. However, check with the health insurance provider you are considering before making the final decision.

It is important to get coverage before you become ill.  Difficulty arises with health insurance coverage if you are already ill because the insurers many consider it a pre-existing condition.  Or some companies may offer coverage for office visits and pharmacy charges, but have you on a waiting list for any other treatment coverage you may need.

Today is the deadline for states to submit details to the Department of Health and Human Services on how they intend to operate the high-risk health insurance pools mandated by healthcare reform. The high-risk pool program is intended to provide coverage to those who have been denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition and who have been without coverage for more than six months. These pools are meant to bridge the gap for such individuals until subsidies and new health insurance exchanges are instituted in 2014. Other crucial reforms included in the package which brought on these pools are provisions that allow individuals to stay on their families’ insurance plans up to age twenty-six, prevent insurers from excluding children because of preexisting conditions, and eliminate lifetime limits on health costs imposed on policyholders. Twenty-nine state and the District of Columbia have elected to run their own pools and will be entitled to a portion of the $5 billion allocated by the federal government to fund them. Nineteen states said they would leave operation of pools in their states to the federal government. Some think tank analysts and state officials worry that federal funding may run out, leaving states liable to cover these high-risk patients out of their own budgets. Federal officials at the Department of Health and Human Services have assured these doubters that the funds will last for until 2014 in states where it will administer the pools. They further say the federal government will cover the costs of developing or modifying accounting or enrollment systems and any other start-up costs states may incur. The contracts due to Health and Human Services today must include strategies for operation of the pools, estimations of total cost, and other provisions. Enrollment in the pools begins July 1 and coverage for policyholders will begin August 1. For more information on the high-risk pools in your state, contact your state’s Department of Insurance.

Obama administration officials and some Senate Democrats are optimistic that the federal subsidy of COBRA benefits passed by the economic stimulus bill will be extended by inserting  a provision to this effect into the “extenders” package of jobless benefits working its way through the Senate this week. This bill is co-sponsored by Senators Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). As discussed in my last post here, it is estimated that over 2 million families who would have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance as the result of a lay-off took advantage of the COBRA subsidy. Instead of losing their coverage, COBRA has allowed them to keep their previous employer’s health insurance and the federal government’s subsidy has paid for 65% of the total cost of maintaining that coverage. This subsidy was a huge help for families who otherwise would have had to assume 100% of the total cost of premiums (including the portion their employer used to pay) to maintain their coverage under COBRA.

COBRA Subsidy Running Out for the Unemployed

As of June 1, 2010, the 15-month COBRA subsidy has expired for those who took advantage of it when it first became available in February 2009. The National Employment Law Project estimates that more than 144,000 households each month will be dropped from the subsidy as these families hit their 15-month mark. Many families whose COBRA subsidy has not yet expired hope the Senate will pass this extension of the COBRA subsidy beyond the 15 month mark so that they can continue paying just 35% of the total cost of their previous employer’s insurance premiums and keep their old coverage. Here are five reasons why I don’t think an extension of this subsidy will make it into the final jobless benefits package which should come to a vote this week:

1)      Centrist House Democrats rejected a similar proposal to extend COBRA subsidies in May 2010 because of concerns about continuing to run-up the national deficit.

2)      Last week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office evaluated the Senate’s trimmed down version of the proposal which is in currently in the works. Extending the COBRA subsidy again is estimated at $4.1 billion, which is much higher than supporters had anticipated.

3)      Congress already extended the subsidy once in November 2009, allowing COBRA beneficiaries to continue receiving the 65% subsidy of their total premium cost for a maximum of 15 months. The original subsidy as passed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was set to expire after 9 months.

4)      There are few other areas of the bill from which co-sponsors Sens. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) can pull funds for the subsidy. The subsidy extension is only part of a package of provisions the Senators are trying to attach to the must-pass legislation. Their whole package has a total cost estimated at nearly $7 billion. Other parts of their provisions would extend unemployment benefits and make changes in dozens of federal programs, and these are not areas from which the senators could easily justify cutting funding in order to make room for another COBRA subsidy extension.

5)      A similar proposal to extend the COBRA subsidy was dropped from the House-passed bill. Additionally, Senate Democratic leaders omitted it from their version when the bill was originally drawn up.

Unfortunately, it seems that given the strained economy and need for budget-consciousness in Washington families who have relied on the federal subsidy to keep their coverage under COBRA will have to reevaluate their options.

Thousands of families who took advantage of the federal government subsidy for extending their former employer’s health insurance coverage through COBRA have had to rethink their options in the past few weeks. On June 1, 2010 the federal government’s subsidy of COBRA health plan extensions expired. COBRA is a federal program which allows workers who have been laid off to continue the health insurance benefits their families received through their job after their employment has been terminated. With employer-sponsored coverage, companies contribute a given portion of the cost of their workers’ health insurance premiums and workers pay the rest. When a worker is laid off, COBRA gives that individual the option to remain on the same insurance plan as long as they agree to pay the total cost of monthly premiums themselves. Unfortunately, the full burden of such premiums is often too onerous for unemployed individuals to bear, especially in economic times such as these. That’s why as part of last year’s economic stimulus package, the federal government offered to subsidize the cost of extending one’s old coverage through COBRA at 65%. This subsidy was available beginning March 1, 2009 and offered 15 months of subsidized coverage to those who took advantage of the extension.

According to a study by the Treasury Department up to 1/3 of eligible unemployed workers signed up for the program. Last Tuesday, this benefit expired leaving thousands of families who took advantage of the opportunity to extend their health plan feeling they can no longer afford to continue this coverage without the help of the subsidy.  One exception to the June 1, 2010 expiration date remains for those who did not become unemployed until more recently. Those families who accepted the COBRA subsidized extension after March 1, 2009 but before December 31, 2009 are able to continue COBRA until September 30, 2010 when the subsidy expires completely. These families will be dropped off COBRA on a rolling basis based on when they signed up.

Though Congress has extended the COBRA subsidies four times since February 2009, the most recent proposed subsidy extension failed due to worries on the part of legislators about the federal budget deficit. Some states are offering additional COBRA extensions (called “mini-COBRA” laws) to supplement federal COBRA to extend benefits up to 36 months but again, the cost of these premiums tend to be much higher than those for plans available on the individual market.

Recently we have had many families losing their COBRA coverage visit our website to look into other, less expensive health insurance options offered on the individual and family health insurance market through us at Health Plan One. With individual and family plans, consumers are able to tailor their coverage so they only pay for the benefits which meet their specific needs. If you’re interested in doing your homework on the individual and family plans available to you, call one of our licensed agents at (877) 567-5267 for an expert, personalized consultation. Other public options for individuals with major preexisting conditions dropping their COBRA exist in most states, as do so-called “HIPAA-eligible” plans. Visit your state’s informational page at healthplanone.com to learn more about the publicly funded programs available in your area which benefit groups like pregnant women, children, and low-income families.

Investigators found yesterday that two-thirds of the health insurance industry in the United States uses a faulty database that charges patients more for seeing out of network doctors. The database, operated by Ingenix, kept rates low in order to underpay doctors which then drove up costs for patients.

Ingenix is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group which is also used by nearly 20 regional and national health insurers. Ingenix agreed last January to pay $350 million in order to settle allegation that it kept its rate low to underpay doctors.  Other health insurers include Aetna, CIGNA, and Wellpoint.

Health insurers submit information to Ingenix to determine the costs for care received out of network. Health insurance companies often skew data to underestimate the costs of medical services so that patients would have to pay more in out of pocket costs.

“The result of this practice is that American consumers have paid billions of dollars for health care services that their insurance companies should have paid,” states the Senate Commerce Committee’s investigative staff.

“Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away,” said Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive at CIGNA. “And that’s exactly the point. If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off.”

To see the full report, go to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4s2x4w7hv-cWoKaCbdWmE1sQecAD991BJOO0.

Price Waterhouse Coopers annual medical costs trends report suggests that a 9 percent increase in health insurance coverage will occur in 2010. This 9 percent increase is primarily for businesses and their employer sponsored health plans. Though employers may suffer a 9 percent cost increase in health insurance coverage, employees might have to cope with an even larger increase in coverage.

PWC implies that some of the reasons for this increase in costs is due to employees being concerned about losing their jobs therefore using their health insurance as much as possible while it is still available to them. Another reason for this increase is increasing medical costs as employment rises. More and more uninsured people are turning to Medicaid causing health coverage costs to rise.

A survey done by PWC that involved over 500 employers concluded that 42 percent will increase health care costs for employees in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and copays.

“As the economy recovers, employers will refocus on more sustainable longer term approaches to medical cost containment based on an increasingly shared interest between employers and their workers,” says Price Waterhouse Coopers Principal Michael Thompson.

Check out the U.S. News article at http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/06/18/health-highlights-june–18–2009.html

President Obama has made clear his goal for universal health care for all Americans. When he addressed the American Medical Association on Monday, he called for an elimination of insurers’ practice of denying those with pre-exisiting health conditions, which got him a huge applause. “This is personal for me. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so it could get out of providing coverage. Changing the current approach to preexisting conditions is the least we can do – for my mother and every other mother, father, son, and daughter, who has suffered under this practice.” While Obama does have support on this idea from the AMA, insurance companies are very hesitant to change many of their practices. Rescission has been a fiery issue between Congress and the insurance companies. This practice effectively cancels the coverage of some sick individuals. Rescission is particularly damaging because patients have gotten used to having coverage, and suddenly it is dropped. “No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact,” Rep. Michael C. Burgess, of Texas , told the Los Angeles Times. “There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact.” Insurers claim, however, that the practice needs to stay in place to protect themselves from those who lied or committed fraud to get policies. The practice certainly saves the companies money, as a congressional investigation found that the canceling of 20,000 people in a five year period allowed the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims. The problem is that not all of these people committed fraud or lied to obtain coverage. Many were simply dismissed because of their costly health conditions. The question over whether or not rescission will be allowed to be practiced by insurance companies will be a great debate for a long time.

As the cost health care services continue to rise in the United States, so does the cost of providing health care coverage. This can be seen in Anthem increasing base premiums for some of its Individual business under-65 plans in Virginia. The base premiums for a Plan like the Lumenos HSA standard increased by 15% while the Keycare Preferred base premium rose 13.5% and the Virginia Standard base premium rose 11%. Factors like any applicable age increase, moving to an area with higher or lower medical costs, changing the number of family members enrolled in a policy, or adding or deleting optional coverage may also affect premiums for customers. Members are required by law to be notified in writing of the increases in premiums, and are advised to to call their agent or Anthem Sales Representative if they have any questions. Anthem offers advice to its customers, some of which includes raising their deductible. They also state they offer other lower-cost plans as alternatives.