TIME 2014 Election

These 6 States Could Expand Medicaid After the Elections

Governor Rick Scott And Challenger Charlie Crist Hold Second Debate
Former Florida governor and Democratic candidate for governor Charlie Crist speaks during a televised debate at Broward College in Davie, Fla., on Oct. 15, 2014 in Davie Joe Raedle—Getty Images

New governors in Maine, Florida, Wisconsin, Kansas, Alaska and Georgia could give new life to the Medicaid expansion

The 2014 midterms have been called the “Seinfeld election” and the “meh midterms” — because they’re supposedly about nothing and nobody cares. But while congressional races have failed to capture voters’ imaginations, the campaigns for governor may have a major effect on at least one group of Americans.

Depending on who wins next Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans could get access to health insurance under the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act.

When the Supreme Court made the Medicaid expansion optional in 2012, many Republican governors and legislators opted out. Today, 27 states and D.C. have accepted the federal money, including a handful led by Republicans, but 21 states are not currently making an effort to do so.

That could change after next week’s elections. There are more than a dozen gubernatorial races considered toss-ups going into the final days of the campaign, and in at least half a switch from Republican control of the governor’s mansion could give new life to the debate over taking the Medicaid money.

In Florida, Alaska, Maine, Wisconsin, Kansas and Georgia—all of which have previously rejected an expansion of Medicaid—Republican incumbents are facing Democratic (and in Alaska’s case, Independent) challengers whose prospects look promising just five days out from Election Day.

In each of those six states, the challengers have openly mulled passing an expansion of Medicaid if they were to win. And the move would generally be popular with voters. According to a recent poll by the Morning Consult, more than 6 in 10 voters—and 62% of all voters in states that have not expanded Medicaid—think that all states should expand coverage to low-income people who are currently ineligible.

Still, roadblocks remain.

“The problem is that there are states where it’s not just a question of what the governor wants,” says Stan Dorn, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “Even if the governor’s office changes hands in Georgia the legislature has to agree.”

Apart from the turnover due to elections, governors in a number of states, including Utah and Tennessee, are considering expanding Medicaid over the next year as well.

Here’s a look at the six states where the issue is in question next week.

Florida

The background: Republican Gov. Rick Scott initially opposed the Affordable Care Act flat out, but he later changed his tune slightly and came out in support of the Medicaid expansion “if it did not cost Florida taxpayers.” The state legislature, however, remains staunchly against it.

What could happen: Democrat Charlie Crist has said he’ll go over lawmakers’ heads and approve it with an executive order.

Where does the race stand: A recent Quinnipiac University poll has Crist leading Scott by 3 points.

How many people would be eligible: An estimated 800,000 to 1 million Floridians would gain coverage.

Alaska

The background: Republican Gov. Sean Parnell opted against expanding Medicaid in his state in 2013 and he remains opposed to it today.

What could happen: Independent candidate Bill Walker said in a recent interview with KTUU, “why would we not when it helps up to 40,000 Alaskans, creates up to 4,000 new jobs in Alaska, brings down overall health care. I just can’t say no.”

Where does the race stand: Walker has a slight lead over Parnell, according to Real Clear Politics.

How many people would be eligible: An estimated 43,000 Alaskans.

Maine

The background: Republican Gov. Paul LePage has said expanding Medicaid coverage in Maine could be “ruinous” and vetoed five previous expansion attempts. His challenger, Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud, has vowed to accept the expansion.

What could happen: Because the legislature remains on board with the idea, it’s likely that Maine would accept the federal money if Michaud wins.

Where does the race stand: LePage is up by nearly 2 percentage points, according to a Real Clear Politics analysis of recent polls.

How many people would be eligible: An estimated 70,000 Maine residents.

Wisconsin

The background: Republican Gov. Scott Walker also turned down the Medicaid expansion, opting instead to push more low-income residents into the insurance marketplaces.

What could happen: Democrat Mary Burke has made a forceful push for the state to expand.

Where does the race stand: The final Marquette University Law School poll has Walker leading Burke among both registered and likely voters.

How many people would be eligible: FamiliesUSA estimates about 274,000 people would benefit from expansion.

Kansas

The background: Republican Gov. Sam Brownback didn’t just reject the expansion, he also signed a law revoking any future governor’s authority to act alone on the Medicaid question.

What could happen: Even if Democrat Paul Davis were to unseat Brownback, though, he’d still have to persuade the Republican-controlled legislature to change its mind.

Where does the race stand: A Real Clear Politics average of polls has Davis ahead by one percentage point.

How many people would be eligible: About 170,000 people, according to the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities.

Georgia

The background: Republican Gov. Nathan Deal also rejected the expansion and signed a law making it harder for his successor to accept it.

What could happen: Even if Democratic challenger Jason Carter were to win, he’d have to win over a Republican-controlled legislature.

Where does the race stand: Deal currently leads Carter by over 2 percentage points, according to an average of polls.

How many people would be eligible: Over 600,000 lower-income Georgians would be eligible.

TIME Health Care

Terminally Ill Brittany Maynard May Not End Her Life, After All

Death With Dignity Advocate
This undated file photo provided by the Maynard family shows Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old terminally ill woman who plans to take her own life under Oregon’s death with dignity law. AP

The 29-year-old woman, who was diagnosed with brain cancer, explains her state of mind two days before her scheduled death

A terminally ill 29-year-old woman who has said she plans to commit physician-assisted suicide on Nov. 1 implies in a heart-wrenching new video that she may not go through with it in the end.

In the six-minute clip, released with advocacy group Compassion & Choices, Brittany Maynard says she may or may not choose to die on that date, People reports.

“So if Nov. 2 comes along and I’ve passed, I hope my family is still proud of me and the choices I made,” says Maynard, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and given six months to live last spring.

Read more at People

Read next: Dear Brittany Maynard: Our Lives Are Worth Living, Even With Brain Cancer

TIME ebola

U.S. Health System Is Not Ready for Ebola, Report Says

"Many health systems are already overwhelmed"

The United States health care system is vastly unprepared to handle Ebola should the virus spread, according to a new report.

An investigation of emergency preparedness by the Associated Press reveals the country is not ready to handle the disease even on a smaller scale, nor is it equipped to handle the spread of other infectious diseases that are airborne, like a new flu strain or SARS.

“Even though there have been only a couple cases, many health systems are already overwhelmed,” Dr. Kenrad Nelson, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the AP.

Experts say it’s unlikely that Ebola will spread widely in the U.S.

Read more at the Associated Press

TIME Diet/Nutrition

Milk Might Not Save Your Bones, Study Says

Glass of milk
Getty Images

Sugars in milk may lead to aging

The bone-strengthening powers of milk have been claimed over and over again in advertisements, pop culture and around the dinner table. But a new study published in the BMJ suggests that the truism may not be true. High milk intake, the study found, doesn’t appear to protect against bone fracture and in fact may lead to increased mortality.

Researchers looked at questionnaires from more than 100,000 people in Sweden on their dairy consumption habits. The study, which followed up with many of the participants after 11 to 20 years, found that high milk intake was associated with higher mortality in both men and women, as well as higher bone fracture in women.

“Our results may question the validity of recommendations to consume high amounts of milk to prevent fragility fractures,” the study says. However, the authors stress that the study is merely observational and not meant to draw causal conclusions.

One possible explanation the authors give for the results is that high levels of the sugars lactose and galactose in milk may cause bones to undergo changes—like inflammation—that resemble aging, leading to the fractures. In animals, supplementing with galactose has been shown to increase aging processes like inflammation and oxidative stress. Data from the study showing a correlation between reduced fractures and low-lactose milk consumption further supports this claim.

More research is needed, of course. “As milk features in many dietary guidelines and both hip fractures and cardiovascular disease are relatively common among older people, improving the evidence base for dietary recommendations could have substantial benefits for everyone,” wrote Mary Schooling, PhD, a professor at the City University of New York, in an accompanying BMJ editorial.

Read next: Here’s Another Reason to Try the Mediterranean Diet

MONEY Health Care

Why You Should Forget About Ebola and Get a Free Flu Shot Instead

Flu Shot Sign
Getty Images

Americans are nearly as worried about Ebola as they are about catching the flu. But influenza is the risk you should pay attention to. And you probably don't need to spend a penny to protect yourself.

Take a break from worrying about Ebola and get a flu shot this fall. While the Ebola virus has so far affected just four people in the United States, tens of millions are expected to get influenza this season. More than 200,000 of them will be hospitalized and up to 49,000 will likely die from it, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A new HuffPost/YouGov poll of 1,000 adults found that the flu is perceived as only slightly more threatening than the Ebola virus, however. Forty-five percent of people polled said that the flu posed a bigger threat to Americans than Ebola, but a substantial 40% said it was the other way around. Fifteen percent said they weren’t sure.

“Ebola is new, mysterious, exotic, highly fatal, and strange, and people don’t have a sense of control over it,” says William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease at Vanderbilt University.

Influenza, on the other hand, is a familiar illness that people often think they can easily control, Schaffner says. “They think, ‘I could get vaccinated, I could wash my hands’ and prevent it.”

Yet that familiarity may lead to complacency. Flu shots are recommended for just about everyone over six months of age, but less than half of people get vaccinated each year.

Now there’s even more reason to get a shot. The health law requires most health plans to cover a range of preventive benefits at no cost to consumers, including recommended vaccines. The flu shot is one of them. (The only exception is for plans that have been grandfathered under the law.)

The provision making the vaccine available with no out-of-pocket expense is limited to services delivered by a health care provider that is part of the insurer’s network.

Depending on the plan, that could include doctors’ offices, pharmacies, or other outlets.

Medicare also covers flu shots without patient cost sharing.

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

MONEY Health Care

Why You Could Get Stuck Paying for More of Your Health Care

Red traffic light
Your insurer may put a stop to how much it will spend on your surgery. iStock

A growing number of companies are capping what your insurance will pay for certain medical procedures. Get more expensive care, and you could be on the hook for the extra.

Aiming to contain health care costs, a growing number of employers and insurers are adopting a strategy that limits how much they’ll pay for certain medical services such as knee replacements, lab tests and complex imaging. A recent study found that savings from such moves may be modest, however, and some experts question whether “reference pricing,” as it’s called, is good for consumers.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), which administers the health insurance benefits for 1.4 million state workers, retirees, and their families, has one of the more established reference pricing systems. More than three years ago, the agency began using reference pricing for elective knee and hip replacements, two common procedures for which hospital prices varied widely without discernible differences in quality, says Ann Boynton, CalPERS’ deputy executive officer for Benefit Programs Policy and Planning.

Working with Anthem Blue Cross, the agency set $30,000 as the reference price for those two surgeries in its preferred provider organization plan. Members who get surgery at one of the 52 hospitals that charge $30,000 or less pay only their plan’s regular cost-sharing. If a member chooses to use an in-network hospital that charges more than the reference price, however, they’re on the hook for the entire amount over $30,000, and the extra spending doesn’t count toward their annual maximum out-of-pocket limit, Boynton says.

“We’re not worried about people not getting the care they need,” says Boynton. “They have access to good hospitals, they’re just getting it at a reasonable price.”

In two years, CalPERS saved nearly $6 million on those two procedures, and members saved $600,000 in lower cost sharing, according to research published last year by James C. Robinson, a professor of health economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Berkeley Center for Health Technology. Most of the savings came from price reductions at expensive hospitals.

The agency recently set caps on how much it would spend for cataract surgery, colonoscopies, and arthroscopic surgery, Boynton says.

Experts say that reference pricing is most appropriate for common, non-emergency procedures or tests that vary widely in price but are generally comparable in quality. Research has generally shown that higher prices for medical services don’t equate with higher quality. Setting a reference price steers consumers to high-quality doctors, hospitals, labs and imaging centers that perform well for the price, proponents say.

Others point out that reference pricing doesn’t necessarily save employers a lot of money, however. A study released earlier this month by the National Institute for Health Care Reform examined the 2011 claims data for 528,000 autoworkers and their dependents, both active and retired. It analyzed roughly 350 high-volume and/or high-priced inpatient and ambulatory medical services that reference pricing might reasonably be applied to.

The overall potential savings was 5%, the study found.

“It was surprising that even with all that pricing variation, reference pricing doesn’t have a more dramatic impact on spending,” says Chapin White, a senior policy researcher at RAND and lead author of the study.

Even though the results may be modest, a growing number of very large companies are incorporating reference pricing, according to benefits consultant Mercer’s annual employer health insurance survey. The percentage of employers with 10,000 or more employees that used reference pricing grew from 10% in 2012 to 15% in 2013, the survey found. Thirty percent said they were considering adding reference pricing, the survey found. Among employers with 500 or fewer workers, adoption was flat at 10% in 2013, compared with 11% in 2012.

The approach is consistent with employers’ general interest in encouraging employees to make cost-effective choices on the job, whether for health care or business supplies, says Sander Domaszewicz, a principal in Mercer’s health and benefits practice.

This spring, the Obama administration said that large group and self-insured health plans could use reference pricing.

The health law sets limits on how much consumers have to pay out of pocket annually for in-network care before insurance picks up the whole tab—in 2015, it’s $6,600 for an individual and $13,200 for a family plan. But if consumers choose providers whose prices are higher than a plan’s reference price, those amounts don’t count toward the out-of-pocket maximum, the administration guidance said.

Leaving consumers on the hook for amounts over the reference price needlessly drags them into the battle between providers and health plans over prices, says White.

“You expect the health plan to do a few things: negotiate reasonable prices with providers, and not to enter into network contracts with providers who provide bad quality care,” White says. “Reference pricing is kind of an admission that health plans have failed on one or both of those fronts.”

Some experts, however, say the strategy can work for consumers.

“What I think is that reference pricing is a choice-preserving strategy, when you look at the alternative, which is a narrow network,” says Robinson.

That may be a question of semantics, if relatively few providers meet the reference price.

Recent guidance from the administration spells out some of the requirements that health plans must meet in order to ensure that there are adequate numbers of high-quality providers if reference-based pricing is used. Among other things, it suggests that plans consider geographic distance from providers or patient wait times.

Like so much about reference pricing, it remains a work in progress. The administration says it will continue to monitor the practice, and may provide additional guidance in the future.

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

MONEY Health Care

How to Save Lots of Money on the Health Tests You Need

Legs on scale at doctor's office
Scott M. Lacey

Catching medical problems early is good for your health—and your wallet. But don't go overboard. Learn to weigh the pros and cons of what the doctor orders.

The latest big push in health care is keeping you from getting sick in the first place. Insurers are sending you reminders to schedule regular exams. Employers are rewarding workers who quit smoking or lose weight. And a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, is full coverage for certain preventive care—with no out-of-pocket costs for you.

Getting a handful of basic tests ­every year can reap rich rewards. “So many diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, are symptomless in the early stages, when they can be easily caught and controlled,” says Dr. Nieca Goldberg, director of the NYU Women’s Heart Center. So see your primary-care doctor annually once you reach your forties (until then, every two or three years is usually sufficient).

Even though fully covered tests are getting more common, for many ­others you will face co-pays or co-­insurance—and shoulder the full cost until you reach your deductible. To keep those costs to a minimum, we recommend two strategies.

First, look for ways to save on every test you take. Prices can vary widely for the same service, even when you stick with in-network doctors and facilities.

Start by checking your health insurer’s website—many list doctors that insurers believe offer quality care at fair prices. Keep in mind that MRIs, CT scans, and other imaging tests often cost much less at free­standing radiology centers. ­(Just be sure the facility is accredited by the American College of Radiology and that your doc will accept the results.) And when your doctor orders a blood test, ask about all your options, including outside the office. “Labs are so standardized, a $10 lipid panel will get the same results and same quality as a $200 lipid panel,” says Scott Matthews of Castlight Health, which helps big businesses manage their health care costs.

Second, learn which screenings are worth your health care dollars and which you can skip. Here’s what you need to know:

6 Essential Tests for Everyone

1) Skin exam

With skin cancer on the rise, it’s smart to have a dermatologist examine the skin over your entire body, looking for suspicious growths, moles, and lesions.

When to get it: At least once a year. “If you have risk factors, such as being fair, having a lot of moles, or having a family history of skin cancer, you may need to be seen as often as every three to six months,” says Dr. David Leffell, chief of dermatologic surgery at the Yale School of Medicine. You could go to your ­primary-care doctor, but dermatologists are better at diagnosing potentially cancerous lesions, studies show.

Cost: $50 to $150. Insurance covers the visit after you meet your deductible; your usual co-pay or co-insurance will apply.

2) Cholesterol check

This blood test, a.k.a. a lipid panel or profile, reports your total cholesterol, your LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, your HDL (“good”) cholesterol, and a type of fat in the blood called triglycerides. High levels of all but the good stuff raise your risk of heart disease and stroke.

When to get it: Men over 45 and women over 50 should be checked every one to three years, says Goldberg. (Until menopause, women have the protective benefits of estrogen.) At younger ages, test every four to six years. Among the reasons for more frequent screenings: Your results aren’t normal, there’s a family history of heart disease, or you have risk factors like being overweight, you smoke, or you have high blood pressure.

Cost: $110 to $305 for test alone. Cholesterol testing is often included in an annual physical, which insurance covers in full.

3) Blood-pressure check

High blood pressure raises your risk of heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, and other serious conditions.

When to get it: Every two years as part of a routine physical; once a year or more if your pressure is above 120/80.

Cost: $70 to $200 for a doctor’s visit, but insurance pays the full tab for your annual preventive checkups

4) Eye exam

Even if you think your vision is 20/20, have your eyes examined regularly—­especially after 40. As you age, you’re at risk for conditions such as glaucoma, which is symptomless. “An exam can also find signs of another disease that may be affecting your eyes, such as diabetes or high blood pressure,” says Dr. Rebecca Taylor, an ophthalmologist in Nashville and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

When to get it: Before age 40, Taylor suggests getting a full exam with an optometrist or ophthalmologist every five to 10 years (yearly if you wear glasses or contacts). After that, make it every two years. Reasons to get more frequent exams include a family history of eye disease, previous eye injuries or surgery, diabetes or high blood pressure, or you are over 65.

Cost: $75 to $200 with an ophthalmologist; $50 to $150 with an optometrist. Insurance coverage varies.

5) A1C blood test

This has become the screening test of choice for diabetes, as it measures your average blood glucose over roughly three months; the fasting blood glucose test tells doctors just what your level is at that moment.

When to get it: The standard recommendation is every three years starting at 45. The American Diabetes Association advises beginning earlier if you’re overweight and have certain risk factors, including high blood pressure.

Cost: $40 to $260 for test. If you have high blood pressure, insurance covers in full.

6) Colonoscopy

This exam is your best defense against colon cancer. While there are other screening tools, a colonoscopy is considered the gold standard: “It doesn’t just diagnose; if the doctor sees adenomas [potentially precancerous polyps], he can remove them then and there,” says Dr. Seth Gross, director of endoscopy at Tisch Hospital at NYU Langone Medical Center.

When to get it: Start at age 50, earlier if you’ve got other risk factors, such as a family history or if you have suspicious symptoms. If the test is negative, get one every 10 years.

Cost: $1,100 to $2,800. Insurance pays every 10 years for adults ages 50 to 75.

4 Essential Tests for Women

Insurance will cover the basic pelvic and breast exams that are part of your annual visit to a gynecologist. Other tests aren’t needed as often—and your insurance coverage will probably reflect that.

1) Pap smear

A Pap smear, also called a Pap test, is when your gynecologist collects cells from your cervix to screen for precancerous changes. Thanks to this test, the cervical cancer death rate declined by almost 70% between 1955 and 1992, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS).

When to get it: Every three years, provided your last test was normal; most women can stop at age 65.

Cost: $75 to $350. Insurance pays in full every three years from ages 21 to 65.

2) Mammogram

There’s been controversy in recent years about when to begin breast cancer screening and how often to do it, but the American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists still recommend getting your first mammogram, an X-ray of your breasts, at 40— earlier if you have risk factors like a family history. Ask your doctor about 3-D mammography, now available at some major medical centers: It reduces false positives and slightly bumps up detection rates, according to a recent JAMA study.

When to get it: Once a year starting at age 40.

Cost: $150 to $375. Screening is covered every one to two years at age 40-plus. Most plans don’t cover more precise 3-D mammograms, so you may owe $40 to $60.

3) DEXA scan for bone density

An X-ray test to measure bone density, this screening is recommended for all women at age 65. But you may want to get one around menopause, when declining estrogen levels increase your risk of osteoporosis.

When to get it: Start at age 65, then consult doctor. With risk factors like smoking and osteoporosis in family, begin at menopause.

Cost: $60 to $385. Insurance pays in full when 65-plus; with preapproval, it often pays for younger postmenopausal women too.

4) HPV (Human – papilloma- virus) test

Typically done at the same time as a Pap, this checks for strains of HPV that are most likely to cause cervical cancer. Before age 30, nearly all sexually active people contract HPV at some point, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Most of the time, HPV is harmless and clears up on its own. But since HPV infection is less common in women over 30, a positive test result is more apt to signal a potential problem.

When to get it: Women ages 30 to 65 should get an HPV test paired with a Pap smear every five years.

Cost: $30 to $125. Insurance pays in full every five years from 30 to 65.

6 Tests You May Need

1) Vitamin D test

Vitamin D helps you absorb calcium and maintain strong bones. Since up to 75% of Americans have low levels (a 2009 study suggests), ask your doctor about adding this to your physical, advises Dr. Marianne Legato, professor emeritus of clinical medicine at Columbia University Medical Center.

Cost: $25 to $150; some, but not all, insurers cover

2) Thyroid-stimulating hormone test

Experts disagree about whether routine thyroid screening is necessary, but make sure to get your blood level of TSH checked if you have fatigue and unexplained weight gain.

Cost: $15 to $115; often covered. Deductible and co-pay or co-insurance apply.

3) Cholesterol particle tests

People whose particles of LDL cholesterol are mostly small and dense have a threefold greater risk of coronary heart disease. Ask your doctor about this test if your cholesterol is borderline, especially if you’re debating whether to go on cholesterol-lowering medications, Goldberg says.

Cost: $15 to $265; not usually covered for routine screening but may be covered in part if you have risk factors.

4) Coronary calcium scan

A CT scan of your heart is used to look for specks of calcium in your arteries that may indicate early signs of coronary artery disease. While this scan is not recommended for everyone, it can be useful if you’ve got a family history or other risk factors. “A score greater than 300 tells us that you’re at increased risk of cardiovascular events in the next five to 10 years,” Goldberg says.

Another heart exam—an exercise stress test—isn’t a useful screening tool if you’re low risk, she adds, due to a high rate of false positives. As a rule, it’s best reserved for people who have risk factors or symptoms such as chest pain or an irregular heartbeat.

Cost: $10 to $300; not usually covered for routine screening, but may be covered in part if you have risk factors.

5) CRP (C-reactive protein) test

This measures blood levels of CRP, an inflammatory protein associated with heart disease. It’s most predictive in men over 50 and women over 60, Goldberg says. In a 2010 study, people in these age groups who were at intermediate risk of heart disease and who had normal cholesterol but high CRP levels benefited from going on cholesterol-lowering medications.

Cost: $10 to $115; not usually covered for healthy patients but often covered in part if you have risk factors.

6) Prostate exam

Screening for prostate cancer used to be a must. Now it’s a maybe. “Intuitively, it makes sense to treat prostate cancers early,” says Dr. Richard Wender, chief cancer control officer at the American Cancer Society. “But some grow so slowly that they’d probably never be life-threatening, and the treatment would be worse for quality of life than the disease itself.” That said, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine this past March found that men under age 65 who underwent surgery for early-stage prostate cancer (instead of watchful waiting) had better survival rates.

Bottom line: At 50, talk to your doctor about your risks (like a family history). If you decide to undergo a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood test and it’s under 2.5 ng/mL, you can wait at least another two years to retest. If it’s over that, test annually.

Cost: $25 to $125 and may be covered by insurance for men older than 50, or starting at age 40 if you face certain risk factors.

 

 

 

TIME 2014 Election

Voters Say Events in U.S. ‘Out of Control’

Poll finds anxiety on a range of issues, from Ebola to health care costs

Call it the Freakout Election.

Two-thirds of likely voters in the most competitive states and congressional districts in the midterm election fight think events in the U.S. are “out of control,” according to a new poll. The survey by Politico found widespread anxiety about the Ebola outbreak, terrorism, health care costs and President Barack Obama’s leadership. Only 36% think the U.S. is “in a good position to meet its economic and national security” challenges.

The poll underscores how both Obama’s low approval ratings and a general sense of disarray are weighing down Democrats just weeks before voters go to the polls to decide which party will control the Senate. A majority of voters, 54%, either strongly disapprove or somewhat disapprove of Obama’s job performance.

Read more at Politico

MONEY Medicare

Some Medicare Advantage Plans Have Hidden Risks—Here’s How to Avoid Them

hands using measuring tape
Nils Kahle

Although they promise quality care at lower cost, some Medicare Advantage plans fall short. Before you enroll, here are key questions to ask.

Seniors have flocked to Medicare Advantage in recent years, attracted by savings on premiums and the convenience of one-stop shopping. But as the annual Medicare enrollment season began this week, a memorandum from federal officials to plan providers surfaced that serves as a big red warning flag.

The upshot: Assess the quality of any Advantage plan before you sign up.

The memorandum, first reported by the New York Times, described ongoing compliance problems uncovered in federal audits of Advantage and prescription drug plans. These include inadequate rationales for denial of coverage, failure to consider clinical information from doctors and failure to notify patients of their rights to appeal decisions. The audits also uncovered problems with inappropriate rejection of prescription drug claims.

Advantage is a managed care alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. It rolls together coverage for hospitalization, outpatient services and, usually, prescription drugs. Advantage plans also cap your out-of-pocket expenses, making Medigap supplemental plans unnecessary.

The savings can be substantial. Medigap plan premiums can cost $200 monthly or more, and stand-alone drug plans will average $39 a month next year. Enrollees have been voting with their wallets: 30% are in Advantage plans this year, up from 13% in 2005, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Advantage plans are subject to strict rules and regulations, and must cover all services offered in original Medicare, with the exception of hospice services. Some offer extra coverage, such as vision, hearing, dental and wellness programs.

And there is evidence that the quality of these plans is rising. Medicare uses a five-star rating system to grade plan quality, and plans can earn bonus payments based on their ratings. Average enrollment-weighted star ratings increased to 3.92 for 2015, from 3.86 in 2013 and 3.71 in 2013, according to Avalere Health, an industry research and consulting firm. Avalere projects that 60% of Advantage enrollment will be in four- or five-star plans next year, up from 52% this year.

But the Medicare memorandum focuses on problems outside the rating system. “It’s about basic blocking and tackling and whether a plan adheres to the program’s technical specs,” says Dan Mendelson, Avalere’s chief executive officer. “These are the basic functions that every plan should be able to handle.”

Nevertheless, consumer advocates say they deal with these compliance problems regularly, and more often with enrollees in Advantage than in traditional Medicare.

“The most typical problems have to do with plans that are making it difficult or impossible for people to get their medications,” says Jocelyn Watrous, an advocate for patients at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “They impose prior authorizations or other utilization management rules that they make up out of whole cloth.”

Consumer advocates urge Medicare enrollees to restrict their shopping this fall to four- and five-rated plans, of which plenty are available in most parts of the country. “If a plan consistently gets four or five stars, all other things being equal it will be a high performer,” says Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center.

Few Medicare enrollees roll up their sleeves to shop, however. A study by Kaiser found that, on average, just 13% of enrollees voluntarily switched their Advantage or drug plans over four recent enrollment periods. And focus groups with seniors conducted by the foundation last May found that few pay attention to the star ratings.

“Seniors said they don’t use the ratings because they don’t feel they reflect their experiences with plans,” said Gretchen Jacobson, associate director of the foundation’s Medicare program. “Even when we told them that their plan only has two stars, many just wanted to stay in that plan.”

Advocates say the star ratings are just a starting point for smart shoppers.

They say you should check to make sure health providers you want to see are in a plan’s network. You should also consider how you would react if any of those providers disappeared during the 12 months that you are locked into the plan. Advantage plans can—and do—drop providers. UnitedHealth Group, the industry’s largest player, made headlines last year when it dropped thousands of doctors in 10 states. Advantage plans in Florida, Pennsylvania, California and Delaware also terminated provider relationships.

Also be sure to examine the prescription drug “formularies” in your plan—the rules under which your medications are covered. And talk with your doctors about any plan you are considering, especially if you see specialists for a chronic condition.

The Medicare memorandum to plans also underscores the importance of appealing denied claims, Baker says. “Appeal, appeal, appeal—it’s like ‘location, location, location’ in real estate.”

TIME Health Care

The Price of Staying Alive For the Next 3 Hours

Stayin' alive—and cheap at the price
Stayin' alive—and cheap at the price ZU_09; Getty Images

A new study suggests a little spending now can buy you a lot of time later

How much do you reckon you’d pay not to be dead three hours from now? That probably depends. If you’re 25 and healthy, a whole lot. If you’re 95 and sickly, maybe not so much. But for people in one part of the world—the former East Germany—the cost has been figured out, and it’s surprisingly cheap: three hours of life will set you back (or your government, really) just one euro, or a little below a buck-thirty at current exchange rates.

That’s the conclusion of a new study out of Germany’s Max Planck Institute, and it says a lot about the power of a little bit of money now to save a lot of suffering later—with implications for all manner of public health challenges, including the current Ebola crisis.

The new findings are a result of one of the greatest, real-time longitudinal studies ever conducted, one that began the moment the Berlin Wall fell, on Nov. 9 1989. Before that year, there were two Germanys not just politically, but epidemiologically. Life expectancy in the western half of the country was 76 years; in the poorer, sicker east, it was 73.5. But after unification began, social spending in the East began rising, from the equivalent of €2,100 per person per year to €5,100 by the year 2000. In that same period, the difference in lifespan across the old divide went in the opposite direction, shrinking from 2.5 years to just one year as the east Germans gained more time. Crunch those numbers and you get the three extra hours of extra life per person per euro per year.

“Without the pension payments of citizens in east and west converging to equivalent levels,” said Max Planck demographer Tobias Vogt in a statement, “the gap in life expectancy could not have been closed.” Increased public spending, Vogt adds, is often framed as an unfortunate knock-on effect of longer life. “But in contrast,” he says, “our analysis shows that public spending can also be seen as an investment in longer life.”

The idea that generous, tactical spending now can be both a money-saver and lifesaver is one that health policy experts tirelessly make—and that people in charge of approving the budgets too often ignore. Bill Gates often makes the point that $1 billion spent to eradicate polio over the next few years will save $50 billion over the next 20 years, not just because there will no longer be any cases of the disease to treat, but because the global vaccination programs which are necessary just to contain the virus can be stopped altogether when that virus is no more.

As TIME reported in September, British inventor Marc Koska made a splash at the TEDMed conference in Washington DC when he unveiled his K1 syringe—an auto-destruct needle that locks after it’s used just once and breaks if too much force is used to pull the plunger back out. That prevents needle re-use—and that in turn not only reduces blood-borne pathogens from being spread, it does so at a saving. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), $1 spent on K1 syringes saves $14.57 in health care costs down the line—or $280 for a $20 order of the shots.

All across the health care spectrum, such leveraging is possible. Critics of the Affordable Care Act have slammed the law for the cost of the preventative services it provides, and while it’s way too early to determine exactly how successful the law will be, the encouraging stabilization in the growth of health costs suggests that something, at least, is working.

Global health officials are making a similar, though more urgent, preventative argument concerning the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. Americans are rightly jumpy over the few cases that have landed on our shores, but the 1,000 new infections per week that are occurring in the hot-spot nations of Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone make our concerns look small. Frighteningly, according to the WHO’s newest projections, that figure will explode to 10,000 cases per week by December if the resources are not deployed to contain the epidemic fast.

“We either stop Ebola now,” WHO’s Anthony Banbury said in a stark presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 14, “or we face an entirely unprecedented situation for which we do not have a plan.”

Suiting up and wading into the Ebola infection zone is a decidedly bigger and scarier deal than spending an extra euro on public health or an extra dollar for a new syringe. But the larger idea of intervention today preventing far larger suffering tomorrow remains one of medicine’s enduring truths. We lose sight of it at our peril.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser