For three days this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The case against the ACA is broken up into four main arguments, primarily on the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion. The historic health law case has made a splash across Capitol Hill and beyond; and the responses range from adversarial to insightful to amusing and back:
The New York Times profiles Jonathan Gruber, the M.I.T. professor responsible for the academic research and number-crunching behind the ACA’s individual mandate.
CommonHealth’s Carey Goldberg talks with Kevin Outterson, director of Boston University’s Health Law Program and a frequent contributor to the Incidental Economist, on the court hearing, and then turns the conversation into a humorous animated video.
AHIP compiled various independent studies on the negative impact of severing the Individual Mandate from the ACA in this infographic.
For those who want to go straight to the source, download the audio recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments from March 26th, March 27th and March 28th.
The Supreme Court will announce its decision by the end of June, at which point, the bill will be handed back to Congress. Will this Congress, notoriously unable to come to agreement across party lines, be up to the challenge? The Hill Health Watch reports.
No matter what happens, Illinois Health still Matters; the State will be transitioning Medicaid into managed care, providers will be challenged to develop new payment models, and we still need to innovate to effectively serve vulnerable populations in tough fiscal times.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Supreme Court Challenge to the ACA
From March 26 to 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., the historic challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. No case has been allotted this much time for argument since the 19th century.
Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March 2010, dozens of legal cases have been filed against the law. Most cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds. Of the small number of cases that have gotten past procedural hurdles, four cases have reached the Courts of Appeals.
Of those cases, three courts have rejected challenges to the law (the Sixth Circuit and the DC Circuit upheld the law entirely, and the Fourth Circuit found the challenge to be premature under the Anti-Injunction Act). However, in the Eleventh Circuit, in a case brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the court found the personal responsibility provision to be unconstitutional. However, that court left the rest of the law in place and specifically found the Medicaid expansion constitutional.
The federal government has appealed the decision striking down the personal responsibility provision. The states and National Federation of Independent Businesses have appealed the parts of the decision that upheld the Medicaid expansion and that left the rest of the law in place. No party is arguing that the case against the personal responsibility provision is premature under the Anti-Injunction Act—the Supreme Court has decided on its own to consider that question.
The Campaign for Better Health Care hopes that the justices fully consider the legal precedents that have already been set in similar cases and find that the law is constitutional. We want to see this law given the full stamp of approval of the highest court in the land so that instead of wasting time playing politics around the Affordable Care Act, lawmakers move ahead to implement it.
The central questions here are: What kind of a country do we want to live in? What values do we have as Americans? This isn't a policy debate, it is a philosophical one. The arguments at the core of it are "you're on your own" versus "taking personal responsibility for the common good of your family and America." Our nation was built on the ideals of personal responsibility and working for the common good of our country. Those are the ideals that Obamacare promotes.
The Affordable Care Act protects and offers all Americans the opportunity to obtain quality, affordable health care. People like the consumer protections in the law. They do not want to give up the vital protections that the Affordable Care Act provides them and go back to being at the mercy of insurance companies. Striking down the Affordable Care Act would take away protections that Americans already have or are about to gain, including:
* rules already prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people, including children, with pre-existing conditions
* tax credits that are already helping small businesses provide coverage to their employees
* rules prohibiting insurers from canceling coverage when people get sick
* rules prohibiting insurers from dropping young adults from their parents’ coverage
* rules prohibiting insurers from imposing annual or lifetime caps on coverage
* improved prescription drug coverage and preventive benefits for seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicare
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional, having already been upheld by multiple courts, including by leading conservative judges. If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, it will uphold the law. Three separate Circuit Courts of Appeal have rejected challenges to the law, with two of these decisions including opinions written by leading conservative judges.
The law is constitutional because Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. This authority comes from the Constitution’s commerce clause and necessary and proper clause and has been undisputed in Supreme Court rulings dating back at least 75 years. Legal precedent has been well established in this case, so let's move on already.
The Affordable Care Act is fair. The personal responsibility provision is a common-sense rule that will ultimately affect about 1 percent of Americans, and the 83 percent of Americans who already have health insurance (for example, through their jobs or through Medicare) will not be affected by it. Most people without health insurance want coverage but cannot get it, either because they cannot afford it or they are denied it due to their pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Care Act makes coverage affordable and eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions. When these people get coverage, they will not be subject to the penalty either.
It is estimated that, at most, 1 percent of the population will refuse to buy coverage and will not qualify for an exemption (for example, for religious reasons or economic hardship). These people should pay their fair share and get coverage before they get sick; waiting until they get sick to get coverage only shifts the cost of their care onto everyone else.
All big changes to our national priorities and policies generate opposition. The Social Security Act in the 1930s and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s were bitterly attacked at the time they were passed. The Social Security Act and Civil Rights Act were even declared unconstitutional by lower courts before the Supreme Court upheld them. Now these laws are part of the fabric of American society. The same will happen with the Affordable Care Act.
Jim Duffett
CBHC Executive Director
# # #
About the Campaign for Better Health Care
We believe that accessible, affordable, quality health care is a basic human right for ALL people. The Campaign for Better Health Care is the state’s largest coalition representing over 300 diverse organizations, organizing to help create and advocate for an accessible, quality health care system for all. For more information, visit www.cbhconline.org.
Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March 2010, dozens of legal cases have been filed against the law. Most cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds. Of the small number of cases that have gotten past procedural hurdles, four cases have reached the Courts of Appeals.
Of those cases, three courts have rejected challenges to the law (the Sixth Circuit and the DC Circuit upheld the law entirely, and the Fourth Circuit found the challenge to be premature under the Anti-Injunction Act). However, in the Eleventh Circuit, in a case brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the court found the personal responsibility provision to be unconstitutional. However, that court left the rest of the law in place and specifically found the Medicaid expansion constitutional.
The federal government has appealed the decision striking down the personal responsibility provision. The states and National Federation of Independent Businesses have appealed the parts of the decision that upheld the Medicaid expansion and that left the rest of the law in place. No party is arguing that the case against the personal responsibility provision is premature under the Anti-Injunction Act—the Supreme Court has decided on its own to consider that question.
The Campaign for Better Health Care hopes that the justices fully consider the legal precedents that have already been set in similar cases and find that the law is constitutional. We want to see this law given the full stamp of approval of the highest court in the land so that instead of wasting time playing politics around the Affordable Care Act, lawmakers move ahead to implement it.
The central questions here are: What kind of a country do we want to live in? What values do we have as Americans? This isn't a policy debate, it is a philosophical one. The arguments at the core of it are "you're on your own" versus "taking personal responsibility for the common good of your family and America." Our nation was built on the ideals of personal responsibility and working for the common good of our country. Those are the ideals that Obamacare promotes.
The Affordable Care Act protects and offers all Americans the opportunity to obtain quality, affordable health care. People like the consumer protections in the law. They do not want to give up the vital protections that the Affordable Care Act provides them and go back to being at the mercy of insurance companies. Striking down the Affordable Care Act would take away protections that Americans already have or are about to gain, including:
* rules already prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people, including children, with pre-existing conditions
* tax credits that are already helping small businesses provide coverage to their employees
* rules prohibiting insurers from canceling coverage when people get sick
* rules prohibiting insurers from dropping young adults from their parents’ coverage
* rules prohibiting insurers from imposing annual or lifetime caps on coverage
* improved prescription drug coverage and preventive benefits for seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicare
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional, having already been upheld by multiple courts, including by leading conservative judges. If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, it will uphold the law. Three separate Circuit Courts of Appeal have rejected challenges to the law, with two of these decisions including opinions written by leading conservative judges.
The law is constitutional because Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. This authority comes from the Constitution’s commerce clause and necessary and proper clause and has been undisputed in Supreme Court rulings dating back at least 75 years. Legal precedent has been well established in this case, so let's move on already.
The Affordable Care Act is fair. The personal responsibility provision is a common-sense rule that will ultimately affect about 1 percent of Americans, and the 83 percent of Americans who already have health insurance (for example, through their jobs or through Medicare) will not be affected by it. Most people without health insurance want coverage but cannot get it, either because they cannot afford it or they are denied it due to their pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Care Act makes coverage affordable and eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions. When these people get coverage, they will not be subject to the penalty either.
It is estimated that, at most, 1 percent of the population will refuse to buy coverage and will not qualify for an exemption (for example, for religious reasons or economic hardship). These people should pay their fair share and get coverage before they get sick; waiting until they get sick to get coverage only shifts the cost of their care onto everyone else.
All big changes to our national priorities and policies generate opposition. The Social Security Act in the 1930s and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s were bitterly attacked at the time they were passed. The Social Security Act and Civil Rights Act were even declared unconstitutional by lower courts before the Supreme Court upheld them. Now these laws are part of the fabric of American society. The same will happen with the Affordable Care Act.
Jim Duffett
CBHC Executive Director
# # #
About the Campaign for Better Health Care
We believe that accessible, affordable, quality health care is a basic human right for ALL people. The Campaign for Better Health Care is the state’s largest coalition representing over 300 diverse organizations, organizing to help create and advocate for an accessible, quality health care system for all. For more information, visit www.cbhconline.org.
Preview: Medicaid and the Supreme Court
Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will be in its third day of arguments about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Tomorrow's argument will focus not on the Individual Mandate (which has gotten the most press and political rhetoric) but on challenges to the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion that will take place in 2014.
Under the ACA, Medicaid coverage will be expanded to any adult with an income at or below 133% of the Federal Poverty level, making low income levels the primary qualification for the program. In Illinois, alone, the Medicaid Expansion will impact 610,000 people. The Federal government will provide funding to cover 100% of the expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter.
Stephanie Altman
Health & Disability Advocates
Under the ACA, Medicaid coverage will be expanded to any adult with an income at or below 133% of the Federal Poverty level, making low income levels the primary qualification for the program. In Illinois, alone, the Medicaid Expansion will impact 610,000 people. The Federal government will provide funding to cover 100% of the expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter.
The primary argument against the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is that the expansion is unlawfully coercive. The plaintiffs argue that the 100% federal funding offered to states for the expansion is so advantageous that states must choose to continue to participate in the Medicaid program.
Medicaid is, and always has been, voluntary to states. The funding offered for the expansion is not a new idea for Medicaid which has always involved government funding. Historically, the Federal government has funded a substantial percentage of each state’s Medicaid program, ranging from 50-83% of states’ costs and, on occasion, 100% of certain expenditures. Due to the vagueness and lack of legal precedent regarding what is “coercive,” this argument may be difficult to prove to the Supreme Court.
A secondary argument is that the expansion, in tandem with other parts of the ACA law, creates changes that are extreme to the point of revolutionizing Medicaid. The Plaintiffs argue that the minimum essential coverage requirements outlined in the ACA render State participation in Medicaid indispensable thus turning Medicaid into “a program to provide a minimum level of coverage to every needy person.”
The Defendants counter that, Medicaid is not the only source of coverage for low-income individuals; they may also receive coverage via Medicare, Veteran’s Assistance benefits, other types of government funded care (such as ICHIP or IPXP in Illinois), or through an employer-provided insurance plan. Also, many individuals who would become eligible for Medicaid in 2014 may not be subject to the individual mandate due to their low income and non-taxpayer status.
Finally, just as participation in Medicaid is voluntary to States, enrollment is voluntary for individuals. This argument also reflects a weak understanding of Medicaid. From its inception, Congress has reserved the right to make changes to the Medicaid program. None of these changes, however, have changed the core features of the program. Instead, these changes have followed a path that leads logically to the reforms called for in the expansion. Minimum coverage offered by a state has gradually expanded over time as criteria for certain low-income populations such as pregnant women, children and adults with a disability and elderly adults were put in place. The types of services covered have increased such as expansions to home- and community-based services that keep beneficiaries out of institutions. Many of these reforms began as options, and were then converted into requirements for states’ participation in the program.
A final piece of the Plaintiff’s argument claims that Medicaid is already too large of a program, and that the expansion will cause it to become too much of a financial burden on states. The Defendants counter that the size of a state’s Medicaid program is controlled, in large part, by the state itself. The Federal government creates the baseline requirements for a state’s Medicaid program, but also allows—and funds—many optional programs and experimental demonstration projects that allow each state to best serve the needs of the population. Many states have created programs that go well beyond the federal baseline. In fact, a large part of all Medicaid spending is on these programs—in Fiscal Year 2007, it comprised 60.4% of all Medicaid expenditures.
For more information about the argument to uphold the Medicaid expansion, see the National Health Law Program's Amicus Brief here. For transcripts and recordings of the Supreme Court's Affordable Care Act arguments, go here and here.
Health & Disability Advocates
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
See into the future of health care reform
Illinois Health Matters has released a new data visualization tool, “Visualizing Health Care Reform in 2014,” for understanding the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in Illinois. This easy-to-use, interactive tool maps the State and shows who is currently uninsured, how many of those people will become insured, and how they will access health insurance as the major provisions of the ACA go into effect in 2014.
Infographics such as “Visualizing Health Care Reform” are valuable aids for understanding complex concepts, such as the impact of health care reform. By using data to illustrate public policy outcomes, people and policymakers can make informed, data-driven decisions.
This tool is the first of its kind to illustrate the future impact of health care reform at the state level. It also gives a valuable glimpse of how crucial these reforms will be for more than 1.6 million uninsured Illinoisans through Medicaid expansion and the new state Health Care Exchange (or “Marketplace). Clearly, businesses and communities across the state have a lot of work to do to gear up to meet the potential demand.
This is just part of the story. The impact of the new health law is even more far-reaching. For every Illinoisan who will gain access to coverage via Medicaid or the Exchange in 2014, there are others who already benefit, such as the young adults who get to remain insured via their parents’ insurance until age 26 or the children and adults whose health has benefitted from the wide range of preventative care services that insurance companies are now required to cover.
For information on how the law can help you or your community now, go to Illinois Health Matters, sign up for our monthly newsletter, or ask a question. For more on the data used in this tool, go here.
Infographics such as “Visualizing Health Care Reform” are valuable aids for understanding complex concepts, such as the impact of health care reform. By using data to illustrate public policy outcomes, people and policymakers can make informed, data-driven decisions.
This tool is the first of its kind to illustrate the future impact of health care reform at the state level. It also gives a valuable glimpse of how crucial these reforms will be for more than 1.6 million uninsured Illinoisans through Medicaid expansion and the new state Health Care Exchange (or “Marketplace). Clearly, businesses and communities across the state have a lot of work to do to gear up to meet the potential demand.
This is just part of the story. The impact of the new health law is even more far-reaching. For every Illinoisan who will gain access to coverage via Medicaid or the Exchange in 2014, there are others who already benefit, such as the young adults who get to remain insured via their parents’ insurance until age 26 or the children and adults whose health has benefitted from the wide range of preventative care services that insurance companies are now required to cover.
For information on how the law can help you or your community now, go to Illinois Health Matters, sign up for our monthly newsletter, or ask a question. For more on the data used in this tool, go here.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Affordable Care Act Turns 2: Help Tell the Story that #HealthCareWorks
This Friday, March 23rd marks the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. All across the country, advocacy groups will celebrate the law with educational events to help tell the story that #HealthCareWorks.
As the law heads to the Supreme Court on March 26th, we need to tell the stories of the millions of Illinois residents who are benefiting from the law. Taking away these benefits will have a disastrous impact – especially on seniors, women, young adults, children and small business owners.
Here in Illinois:
This week, you can help spread the word that health care works and real people would suffer if the Affordable Care Act is scaled back or repealed. Use #HealthCareWorks on Twitter to share stories and statistics that demonstrate how the law has already helped provide better care and lower costs. Write a letter to the editor. Send a message to your representatives in Congress. We can’t afford to go backwards when it comes to better, more affordable health care.
Angela Benander
Know Your Care Illinois
As the law heads to the Supreme Court on March 26th, we need to tell the stories of the millions of Illinois residents who are benefiting from the law. Taking away these benefits will have a disastrous impact – especially on seniors, women, young adults, children and small business owners.
Here in Illinois:
- More than 1.3 million Illinois seniors received free preventative care including mammograms and colonoscopies in 2011.Nearly 2.4 million Illinoisans with private health insurance gained coverage of free preventative medical care with no co-pays.
- 144,226 people on Medicare saved more than $96 million on prescription drugs because of the new law.
- 1,962 Illinoisans who were denied health insurance now have coverage through the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.
- A growing number of small businesses offering health insurance are taking advantage of new tax credits allowed under the law.
This week, you can help spread the word that health care works and real people would suffer if the Affordable Care Act is scaled back or repealed. Use #HealthCareWorks on Twitter to share stories and statistics that demonstrate how the law has already helped provide better care and lower costs. Write a letter to the editor. Send a message to your representatives in Congress. We can’t afford to go backwards when it comes to better, more affordable health care.
Angela Benander
Know Your Care Illinois
The State of Illinois and Medical Home Network partner for improved care coordination
Last week the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and the Medical Home Network (MHN) announced an innovative partnership that could mean better care and lower cost of care for Medicaid beneficiaries.
MHN is one of the largest collaborations of safety net providers in the country working to deliver better coordinated care to vulnerable populations. Partnership with the State allows MHN to test promising delivery and payment innovations that impact approximately 170,000 Medicaid beneficiaries, who make up just less than 10 percent of the State’s total Primary Care Case Management (PCCM) Medicaid population and 11 percent of PCCM costs. The vast majority of these beneficiaries live on Chicago’s South and Southwest Sides, areas where healthcare is fragmented and health status is generally poor.
In addition to the State, this public-private partnership includes the second largest public health system (Cook County Health and Hospitals System), a renowned academic medical center (Rush University Medical Center), a hospital focused on chronically-ill children (La Rabida Children’s Hospital), three community hospitals, six Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and an extensive physician network.
Already, MHN has begun to implement innovative technology called MHNConnect that drives meaningful improvement in care coordination by virtually connecting disparate providers serving the population. MHNConnect, a secure, web-based portal, sends real-time alerts on patient hospital activity to Medical Homes (primary care sites) and makes historical prescription and medical claims data available to providers at the point of care. Doctors’ moments of “if I only knew” are turning into “now I know.”
MHNConnect is an enhanced version of a platform that reduced hospital admissions by 31%, ED use by 34% and increased patients’ visits to their PCP by 29% when applied to an uninsured population in California. The MHN model of care has the potential to deliver better care at a lower cost. MHNConnect and other MHN initiatives are expected to significantly improve critical transitions of care by using real-time information technology to increase the percentage of patients who follow-up with their Medical Home within seven days of a hospital stay or visit to the emergency department (ED). MHN also anticipates reducing the populations’ annual ED visits (approximately 100,000 in a 12-month period) by preventing over 3,000 avoidable visits.
During the first day MHNConnect went live, a MHN Medical Home was able to identify a patient who frequently went to the ED for asthma complications but had not visited his primary care physician or filled a medication that could keep his condition under better control. New information from MHNConnect allowed the Medical Home to identify the patient, contact him to schedule an appointment and begin to manage the patient’s condition at his Medical Home.
Within the first three weeks of using MHNConnect, care coordinators at a second Medical Home were able to successfully schedule timely follow-up appointments after Inpatient Discharges and ED visits for 93% of patients with MHNConnect hospital activity. MHN is encouraged by dramatic results such as these, as well as initial positive feedback from patients and providers.
MHNConnect and other MHN initiatives are designed to improve care coordination, a key to improving quality and reducing cost. MHN expects to reduce total cost of care by 2-4% in year one. If projected savings are realized, the MHN model could serve as a delivery framework to meet the needs of similar communities across the country.
Funded by the Comer Science and Education Foundation, MHN is currently rolling out MHNConnect to additional sites. Read more at http://www.mhnchicago.org/node/21.
Cheryl Lulias
Executive Director, Medical Home Network
MHN is one of the largest collaborations of safety net providers in the country working to deliver better coordinated care to vulnerable populations. Partnership with the State allows MHN to test promising delivery and payment innovations that impact approximately 170,000 Medicaid beneficiaries, who make up just less than 10 percent of the State’s total Primary Care Case Management (PCCM) Medicaid population and 11 percent of PCCM costs. The vast majority of these beneficiaries live on Chicago’s South and Southwest Sides, areas where healthcare is fragmented and health status is generally poor.
In addition to the State, this public-private partnership includes the second largest public health system (Cook County Health and Hospitals System), a renowned academic medical center (Rush University Medical Center), a hospital focused on chronically-ill children (La Rabida Children’s Hospital), three community hospitals, six Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and an extensive physician network.
Already, MHN has begun to implement innovative technology called MHNConnect that drives meaningful improvement in care coordination by virtually connecting disparate providers serving the population. MHNConnect, a secure, web-based portal, sends real-time alerts on patient hospital activity to Medical Homes (primary care sites) and makes historical prescription and medical claims data available to providers at the point of care. Doctors’ moments of “if I only knew” are turning into “now I know.”
MHNConnect is an enhanced version of a platform that reduced hospital admissions by 31%, ED use by 34% and increased patients’ visits to their PCP by 29% when applied to an uninsured population in California. The MHN model of care has the potential to deliver better care at a lower cost. MHNConnect and other MHN initiatives are expected to significantly improve critical transitions of care by using real-time information technology to increase the percentage of patients who follow-up with their Medical Home within seven days of a hospital stay or visit to the emergency department (ED). MHN also anticipates reducing the populations’ annual ED visits (approximately 100,000 in a 12-month period) by preventing over 3,000 avoidable visits.
During the first day MHNConnect went live, a MHN Medical Home was able to identify a patient who frequently went to the ED for asthma complications but had not visited his primary care physician or filled a medication that could keep his condition under better control. New information from MHNConnect allowed the Medical Home to identify the patient, contact him to schedule an appointment and begin to manage the patient’s condition at his Medical Home.
Within the first three weeks of using MHNConnect, care coordinators at a second Medical Home were able to successfully schedule timely follow-up appointments after Inpatient Discharges and ED visits for 93% of patients with MHNConnect hospital activity. MHN is encouraged by dramatic results such as these, as well as initial positive feedback from patients and providers.
MHNConnect and other MHN initiatives are designed to improve care coordination, a key to improving quality and reducing cost. MHN expects to reduce total cost of care by 2-4% in year one. If projected savings are realized, the MHN model could serve as a delivery framework to meet the needs of similar communities across the country.
Funded by the Comer Science and Education Foundation, MHN is currently rolling out MHNConnect to additional sites. Read more at http://www.mhnchicago.org/node/21.
Cheryl Lulias
Executive Director, Medical Home Network
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
What does Health Care Reform mean for Small Businesses?
Your Bottom Line: What Healthcare Reform Means for Illinois Small Businesses
March 23, 2012 11:00 AM CDT
This webinar will focus on what the new federal healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, means for Illinois small businesses. It will include both federal and state provisions to help local small business owners understand how the law will affect them.
We are excited for you to participate because this webinar will have special opening remarks by Marianne Markowitz, Regional Administrator for the U. S. Small Business Administration in Chicago. In addition, valuable information will be provided by ACCION Chicago, the Women's Business Development Center, the Campaign for Better Health Care and the Small Business Majority.
Topics being discussed include:
• Chicago area small business resources
• Small business tax credits— who’s eligible for them and how to claim them
• Illinois health insurance exchange and on going legislation that will directly impact on small businesses access to health insurance
• Prevention and wellness
• Shared responsibility
• Cost containment
• Tools and resources available for small businesses interested in learning more about the law.
Register for the webinar here.
For more information email Joyce Harant or call 309-648-3035.
March 23, 2012 11:00 AM CDT
This webinar will focus on what the new federal healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, means for Illinois small businesses. It will include both federal and state provisions to help local small business owners understand how the law will affect them.
We are excited for you to participate because this webinar will have special opening remarks by Marianne Markowitz, Regional Administrator for the U. S. Small Business Administration in Chicago. In addition, valuable information will be provided by ACCION Chicago, the Women's Business Development Center, the Campaign for Better Health Care and the Small Business Majority.
Topics being discussed include:
• Chicago area small business resources
• Small business tax credits— who’s eligible for them and how to claim them
• Illinois health insurance exchange and on going legislation that will directly impact on small businesses access to health insurance
• Prevention and wellness
• Shared responsibility
• Cost containment
• Tools and resources available for small businesses interested in learning more about the law.
Register for the webinar here.
For more information email Joyce Harant or call 309-648-3035.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)