In 2016, the standard Part B premium amount will be $121.80 (or higher depending on your income). Most people who get Social Security benefits will continue to pay a Part B premium of $104.90 each month. You'll pay a different premium amount in 2016 if:
You enroll in Part B for the first time in 2016.
You don't get Social Security benefits.
You have Medicare and Medicaid, and Medicaid pays your premiums.
Your modified adjusted gross income as reported on your IRS tax return from 2 years ago is above a certain amount.
If you're in 1 of these 4 groups, here's what you'll pay:
If your yearly income in 2014 (for what you pay in 2016) was
You pay $147 per year for your Part B deductible ($166 in 2016). After your deductible is met, you typically pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for most doctor services (including most doctor services while you're a hospital inpatient), outpatient therapy, and durable medical equipment.
This
motto exists on our money, official documents, on the walls of our government
institutions, in all the official halls of Government. So routine is the motto
that I wonder how much we pay much attention to it, and what it means to us
when we see it. The God I know and believe in
also said: “He loves the World!”
I believe that means the people of the
World. Therefore
I recommend an addition to the motto: “HIS PEOPLE WE SERVE". Why just
leave the motto to hang up there to be ignored, admired, decorate our national
placards without also giving it a little interpretation.
Our
forefathers formed a system where the people would appoint individuals who
would serve them to represent their needs and dreams. In other words our
elected representatives are there to serve the people.
It would do no harm to remind our glorious
leaders why they hold their honorable positions. I would have liked to see this
motto on the courtroom of that Texas judge who refuses to give newborn children
birth certificates because their parents are poor immigrants, in the halls of
our Supreme Court whose honorable judges ruled that a corporation is same as a
person, in our congress who too often thinks that the welfare of the bankers
and financial power lords is all they need be concerned about.
The inequality between the wealthy and the
poor, the plight of the aged, the infirm, the education system, the needs of
our infrastructure, the dangerous deterioration of our environment, social
Security, (I’m sure you could add your own lists to this.) are more important
than spending millions of dollars on partisan investigations to perpetuate
one,s power hold on government.
IN GOD WE TRUST
HIS PEOPLE WE SERVE
Sincerely.
The Old
Domini
for more posts go to: http://peaceforworld26.blogspot.com/
President Signs Budget Agreement That Limits Projected Increases in Part B Costs for 2016
This week, the President signed into law a two-year budget agreement that prevents the projected significant increase in the Medicare Part B premium and deductible for 2016.
...to read more click on link below...
DEATH RATES RISING FOR MIDDLE AGED WHITE AMERICANS
Something startling is happening to middle-aged white Americans. Unlike every other age group, unlike every other racial and ethnic group, unlike their counterparts in other rich countries, death rates in this group have been rising, not falling.
I am having heart valve replacement surgery soon and spoke with my primary care doctor about care after my surgery. She said that I should ask the hospital for a discharge plan before I leave so that I understand how to continue my care once I am home. I have never received a discharge plan before. Does Medicare require the hospital to provide a discharge plan to me as part of my hospital stay?
- Louise (Washington, DC)
Dear Louise,
Hospital discharge planning services are intended to make your move from the hospital to your home or other location as smooth and safe as possible, and aim to prevent additional trips to the hospital for you. Under specific circumstances, Medicare does require all hospitals to provide discharge planning services as part of a hospital stay. Let’s see if those circumstances might apply to you.
Hospital discharge planning is only required if you are admitted to the hospital as an inpatient. If you are considered a hospital outpatient, Medicare does not require hospital staff to help you prepare for your care following a hospital stay. However, some states may provide you with greater rights to discharge planning services. Since you had heart valve replacement surgery, it is likely that you will be considered a hospital inpatient. Here are additional steps you can take to ensure that you leave the hospital with the plan you need.
You or your doctor should ask hospital staff for a comprehensive discharge planning evaluation. A discharge planning evaluation tries to foresee your medical and other care needs after your hospital stay. Some hospitals automatically evaluate the discharge needs of all patients, and some do not. That said, if you or your doctor asks for a comprehensive discharge evaluation, the hospital must give you one. Know that the discharge evaluation is not the same as a discharge plan, but it is a necessary step for acquiring a discharge plan if you are eligible.
Be aware that the hospital’s main goal during your evaluation should be to return you to the place you left before your hospital stay (this may be your home or another facility). If this isn’t possible, the hospital should recommend other, more appropriate places for you.
Make sure hospital staff members consider your range of needs following your hospitalization.If you are returning home following your surgery, the discharge planning evaluation should see whether you can care for yourself or if you will need assistance from family, friends, or other community caregivers. For example, do you need home health care or meal delivery services? The hospital staff should also see whether you will need medical equipment or changes to your home to make it safe. If you are going back to a facility, the hospital must make sure the facility can still care for you after your hospital stay.
Review which post-discharge services will be covered by Medicare and how much they will cost. If you have another type of insurance, such as Medicaid, check what is covered by that insurance.
Tell the hospital discharge planning staff about your needs and preferences for care after your hospitalization. If you are eligible for a discharge plan, your needs and preferences must be incorporated into your plan of care.
Be sure the hospital prepares you for discharge. Before you leave the hospital, staff must educate and train you, your family, and/or your caregivers about your care needs. Hospital staff should also provide a clear list of instructions for your care and all medications you will need. The hospital must explain what to do if problems occur, including who to call and when to seek emergency help. The hospital must provide referrals as appropriate for other care, including referrals to home health, skilled nursing or hospice agencies, physicians, and medical equipment suppliers, among other supportive services.
Be sure to follow up with your primary care provider and other providers involved in your care after your hospitalization. The hospital should send your providers information about your medical condition no later than seven days after you leave the hospital. Keep in mind that Medicare now pays for your primary care provider to manage your care right after your hospital discharge. Click here to learn more about this benefit. - Marci
A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition recommends that older adults consume a protein-rich diet in order to maintain muscle strength and mass. A protein diet from animal and plant sources is essential for building muscle, and muscle mass and strength are important for older adults. Losing muscle strength can affect one’s ability to move and perform basic tasks. It also can affect one’s balance and increase their odds of falling. To read more about the study, click here. To read more about dietary protein, click here.
Medicare Rights University, a comprehensive online training curriculum for professionals, provides a guided learning experience complete with a self-assessment tool, in-depth and user-friendly Medicare content, quizzes to test your knowledge, and downloadable materials. This unique resource provides professionals with a clear path to learning Medicare through a Core Curriculum—four levels of Medicare instruction designed to build on information learned as you progress through each level. Medicare Rights University also offers a Special Topics section which provides an in-depth look at subjects not covered in the Core Curriculum, such as Medicare's coverage of durable medical equipment and Medicare from a policy perspective.
The Medicare Rights Center is a national, nonprofit consumer service organization that works to ensure access to affordable health care for older adults and people with disabilities through counseling and advocacy, educational programs and public policy initiatives.
Dear Marci is a biweekly e-newsletter designed to keep you -- people with Medicare, social workers, health care providers and other professionals -- in the loop about health care benefits, rights and options for older Americans and people with disabilities. Click here to unsubscribe
Supreme Court Allows Nationwide Health Care Subsidies
Demonstrators expressed support for the Affordable Care Act outside of the Supreme Court on Thursday.Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Courtruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance, a sweeping vindication that endorsed the larger purpose of Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement.
The 6-to-3 ruling means that it is all but certain that the Affordable Care Act will survive after Mr. Obama leaves office in 2017, and has a greater chance of becoming an enduring part of America’s social safety net.
For the second time in three years, the law survived an encounter with the Supreme Court. But the court’s tone was different this time. The first decision, in 2012, was fractured and grudging, while Thursday’s ruling was more assertive.
In dissent on Thursday, Justice Antonin Scalia called the majority’s reasoning “quite absurd” and “interpretive jiggery-pokery.”
He announced his dissent from the bench, a sign of bitter disagreement. His summary was laced with notes of incredulity and sarcasm, sometimes drawing amused murmurs in the courtroom as he described the “interpretive somersaults” he said the majority had performed to reach the decision.
“We really should start calling this law Scotus-care,” Justice Scalia said, to laughter from the audience.
In a hastily arranged appearance in the Rose Garden on Thursday morning, a triumphant Mr. Obama praised the ruling. “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” he said, adding: “What we’re not going to do is unravel what has now been woven into the fabric of America.”
The ruling was a blow to Republicans, who have been trying to gut the law since it was enacted. But House Speaker John A. Boehner vowed that the political fight against it would continue.
“The problem with Obamacare is still fundamentally the same: The law is broken,” Mr. Boehner said. “It’s raising costs for American families, it’s raising costs for small businesses and it’s just fundamentally broken. And we’re going to continue our efforts to do everything we can to put the American people back in charge of their health care and not the federal government.”
The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act that created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans. Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them. Across the nation, about 85 percent of customers using the exchanges qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage, based on their income.
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
A legal victory for the plaintiffs, lawyers for the administration said, would have affected more than six million people and created havoc in the insurance markets and undermined the law.
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
This was challenging, he said, in light of the law’s “more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” a consequence of rushed work behind closed doors that “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.”
But he said the law’s interlocking parts supported a ruling in favor of the subsidies, particularly given that a contrary decision could have given rise to chaos in the insurance markets. A ruling rejecting subsidies in most of the nation would have left in place other parts of the law, including its guarantee of coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty, and its expansion of Medicaid.
Without the subsidies, many people would be unable to afford insurance, and healthier consumers would go without coverage, leaving insurers with a sicker, more expensive pool of customers. That would raise prices for everyone, leading to what supporters of the law called death spirals.
“The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, referring to the challengers, “because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the act to avoid."
In dissent, Justice Scalia wrote that the majority had stretched the statutory text too far.
“I wholeheartedly agree with the court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections,” Justice Scalia wrote. “Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.”
“Reading the act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter,” he wrote. “ ‘Exchange established by the state’ means what it looks like it means.”
Justice Scalia said the decision had damaged the court’s reputation for “honest jurisprudence.”
The court, he said, had taken into its own hands a matter involving tens of billions of dollars that should have been left to Congress.
“The court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery,” Justice Scalia wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts rejected the argument that Congress had limited the availability of subsidies in order to encourage states to create their own exchanges, a notion that had occurred to almost no one at the time the law was enacted.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have established their own exchanges. Under the law, the federal government has stepped in to run exchanges in the rest of the states.
“The whole point of that provision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is to create a federal fallback in case a state chooses not to establish its own exchange. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, Congress did not believe it was offering states a deal they would not refuse — it expressly addressed what would happen if a state did refuse the deal.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion. In the 2012 case, Justice Kennedy was in dissent.
The case started when four plaintiffs, all from Virginia, sued the Obama administration, saying the phrase meant that the law forbids the federal government to provide subsidies in states that do not have their own exchanges.
The plaintiffs challenged an Internal Revenue Service regulation that said subsidies were allowed whether the exchange was run by a state or by the federal government. They said the regulation was at odds with the Affordable Care Act.
In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled against the challengers.
Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, said the contested phrase was “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That meant, he said, that the I.R.S. interpretation was entitled to deference.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was more forceful. “This is not a case for the I.R.S.,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “It is instead our task to determine the correct reading.”
