Jay Hancock joined Kaiser Health News in 2012 from The Baltimore Sun, where he wrote a column on business and finance. Previously he covered the State Department and the economics beat for The Sun and health care for The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk and the Daily Press of Newport News. He has a bachelor’s degree from Colgate University and a master’s in journalism from Northwestern University. | Contact: JayH@kff.org | @JayHancock1
Health and social spending as measured by the Census Bureau grew by only 3.7 percent from the second quarter of 2013 to the same quarter of 2014.
The National Business Group on Health also found, based on 136 large employers’ responses, a continued move toward high-deductible, "consumer-directed" plans.
Hints of cost spikes matter because much is riding on spending forecasts.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, favors a tight definition for businesses that can be exempted from the health law’s contraceptive mandate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggests the consequences may be farther reaching.
The idea, which could save companies big money, is stirring interest and concern.
Implementation of the health law has renewed discussions of who wins, loses and gains access to health insurance. But questions persist. Here’s a corrective to common misconceptions about who pays for health care.
But insurers still contest the claim that rates will rise slightly after arriving at their own calculations of the originally proposed cuts.
In high-visibility ad campaigns, insurers maintain that reduced payment rates, which are expected to be announced Monday, will do real harm. What should beneficiaries expect?
A number of insurance companies have agreed to give an actuarial firm early information about enrollment and member health in the plans sold on the online marketplaces.
The administration pressed the pause button on part of the health law again. Here's what the new timeline for the employer mandate means for businesses, workers -- and for politicians.