This is an article I ran across on the internet.  I haven't written any part of it, but thought it was of great interest. 

High court health care ruling could force California to 'rethink everything'

By Emily Bazar, CHF Center for Health Reportingdailynews.com

Posted:   06/16/2012 06:23:37 PM PDT

June 17, 2012 1:41 AM GMTUpdated:   06/16/2012 06:39:35 PM PDT

When President Obama's health care overhaul became law two years ago, California lawmakers jumped into action. Within months, they adopted several state laws that implement or build on the federal measure, including one to create a state health insurance exchange and another to allow young adults up to age 26 to remain covered by their parents' health insurance policies. Lawmakers passed even more bills related to the overhaul last year and continue to debate sweeping proposals now. The difference this year is that the fate of those state laws, and the impact they will have on Californians, hang under what state Sen. Ed Hernandez calls a "cloud of uncertainty." Before the end of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Among the most likely scenarios, the court may leave the federal health law intact, overturn it completely or strike down a key provision that requires most people to purchase health insurance. Each possibility carries different implications for California, a state that took an early and aggressive approach to implementing the federal law. "We will have to rethink everything" if the federal law is overturned in part or whole, said Hernandez, D-West Covina, chairman of the Senate Health Committee. "We have to reassess all of these measures. Some of them are actually contingent upon the implementation of the Affordable Care Act."

Experts predict up to 3 million uninsured Californians will become eligible for health coverage starting in 2014, when the major provisions of the law, such as an expansion of Medicaid eligibility, kick in.
And the Golden State, which already has received more than $1 billion in federal funding, is counting on billions more. Should the Supreme Court undo the law's provisions or funding, some state lawmakers and consumer advocates say Californians still will benefit from better health coverage, thanks to the new state laws. Others fear that those new requirements will raise the cost of insurance. "It will be important for everyone in California to step back and think through how we respond in a way that will work for affordable coverage," said Patrick Johnston, CEO of the California Association of Health Plans. The list of state bills that implement or expand on the Affordable Care Act is long, including a law that created a state health insurance exchange where Californians will be able to buy health coverage and find out whether they qualify for subsidies; a law that prohibits insurance companies from denying health coverage to children with pre-existing medical conditions; and a law that prohibits insurers from setting lifetime caps on benefits. "There are things that millions of Californians already are benefiting from," said Richard Figueroa, director of Health and Human Services for the California Endowment health foundation.
 
Additional measures are being debated by the Legislature now, such as a proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone - not just children - regardless of pre-existing conditions. Hernandez, the author of that measure and a fervent supporter of the Affordable Care Act, says he will move forward with that bill as long as the federal law stands. At the same time, his office is scouring existing laws to determine which are tied to the fate of the federal law, and which will remain state law regardless. Hypothetically, he said, "let's say most of those laws are invalid - we have to start all over and turn those into statutes that are not dependent on the federal government."
 
But could those measures come at a price to Californians? "They cost money. There's no doubt about it when you mandate things like expanding coverage to kids or banning lifetime maximums," said Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at USC.
Just who will bear that cost is up for debate. Figueroa and Kim Belshe believe that insurers already have built into premiums the costs of the new mandates. Belshe, former secretary of the state Health and Human Services Agency, is a California Health Benefit Exchange board member. "The insurance products being sold last year, this year and next year reflect the changes that have already occurred," she said. But Johnston, of the health plan association, said the true effect of the state's laws on Californians' pocketbooks will hinge on the Supreme Court's decision. He describes the critical pieces of the Affordable Care Act as a "three-legged stool" that work together to keep costs down. One leg of the stool is the billions in federal funding for expanding coverage, he said. The second is the requirement - known as the "individual mandate" - that most people purchase health insurance. The third is called "guaranteed issue," which restricts health insurance companies from denying coverage to people for any reason, including pre-existing conditions. If the Supreme Court strikes down any one or more of them, he said, California "can't just ignore the leg of the stool that was removed." Take the individual mandate, for example. If everyone must purchase insurance, the theory goes, insurance companies will have a large and balanced pool of customers where risk is spread among the sick and healthy - and so is the cost. Without the mandate, some healthy people wouldn't buy insurance, which would reduce the size of the pool and boost the price of insurance for others, he said. Plus, the state has passed laws requiring additional coverage from insurance companies, such as bans on lifetime coverage limits. "The premise of the mandate is that you're spreading the cost of these kinds of improved coverage across the population. The impact on rates is not as great," said David Lansky, CEO of the Pacific Business Group on Health, a nonprofit coalition of 50 large companies that focuses on health care issues. "But if you don't have that mandate in place, the cost of the required improvement in the benefits is only being shared by those who have coverage." Hernandez already is considering a statewide individual mandate or other measure should the Supreme Court strike down the federal one. But he and others caution that a state individual mandate and insurance exchange can't be successful without federal money. "If those federal funds disappeared or were enjoined by the court, California would be back to the drawing board," Belshe said.

 http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20875047/high-court-health-care-ruling-could-force-california?source=rss

HICAP

HICAP

Did you know there is a non-profit organization dedicated to Medicare advocacy and education for Californians?  It’s called HICAP, which stands for the Health Insurance Counseling & Advocacy Program.  It offers free, one-on-one Medicare counseling. Trained volunteer counselors can answer your questions and help you understand your Medicare rights and benefits, including how to appeal denials of coverage; Medicare supplemental insurance (Medigap policies); Medicare Advantage plans; employee and retiree coverage; and long-term care insurance. HICAP counselors do not sell, recommend, or endorse any insurance product, agent, insurance company, or health plan.  Many senior centers offer this service in their community.  For more information on HICAP, visit the California Health Advocates website @http://www.cahealthadvocates.org//

Immunizations and Vaccines for Children

Immunizations and Vaccines for Children

Immunizations protect us from serious diseases and also prevent the spread of those diseases to others. Over the years immunizations have thwarted epidemics of once common infectious diseases such as measles, mumps, and tetanus. And because of immunizations we've seen the near eradication of others, such as polio and smallpox.  Immunizations, also called vaccines, safely and effectively use a small amount of a weakened virus or bacteria to prevent infection by that very virus or bacteria.  When you get an immunization, you're injected with a weakened form of (or a fragment of) a disease. This triggers your body's immune response, causing it to produce antibodies to that particular ailment.

Why Should Your Child Get Immunized?

The goal of public health is to prevent disease. It's much easier and more cost-effective to prevent a disease rather than treat it. That's exactly what immunizations aim to do.  Some vaccines need to be given only once; others require updates or "boosters" to maintain successful immunization and continued protection against disease.

How Effective Are Immunizations?

Vaccines are very effective at preventing disease, but they don't work all the time. According to the CDC, most of the recommended childhood immunizations are 90%-100% effective.  However, sometimes a child will not become fully immunized against a disease after receiving a vaccine. In cases where a vaccine has not given your child 100% immunity and then are exposed to an infectious disease, their symptoms may be milder than if they had not been immunized at all.

Which Immunizations Do My Children Need?

Because proof of immunization is often a prerequisite for enrollment in school or day care, it's important to keep your children up to date on their vaccines. The recommended immunizations for children 0-6 years of age include:

·         Hepatitis B

·         Rotavirus

·         Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis

·         Haemophilus influenzae type B

·         Pneumococcal

·         Inactivated poliovirus

·         Influenza

·         Measles, mumps, rubella

·         Varicella

·         Hepatitis A

·         Meningococcal (for certain high-risk groups)

It's important to keep your child's immunizations on schedule and up to date, but if your child misses a scheduled dose he or she can "catch up" later, but should be done in a timely manner.  The complete updated schedule of immunizations for children ages 0-18 can be downloaded from the CDC web site.

Can Immunizations Cause Side Effects?

Today, vaccines are considered quite safe. As with any medication, they can have side effects, which are in most cases usually quite mild. Most common minor reactions to an immunization are:

·         Soreness or redness around the injection site

·         Low-grade fever

Side effects like these usually disappear in a few days. In extremely rare instances a high fever, in excess of 104 degrees, can occur with a vaccine.  Children have also been known to have serious allergic reactions to a vaccine. These usually happen very soon after getting the vaccine, and doctors' offices are well equipped to handle such reactions. If you think your child has or may have an allergy to any component in a vaccine, be sure to share that information with your doctor.  Medical providers generally agree that the proven preventive benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks of the minimal side effects associated with them. More information about vaccine side effects and precautions can be found in the CDC's brochure Parents Guide to Childhood Immunizations.

Vaccine Myths and Misinformation

We don't need to vaccinate against rare diseases

Few parents today have even heard of all of the diseases we vaccinate against, let alone seen a case of the measles, polio or diptheria.  It is these very vaccines that are keeping these illnesses so rare. Avoiding having your child immunized because of myths and misinformation about vaccine safety puts your child -- and public health -- at risk.

The preservative thimerosal makes vaccines risky

Another concern about vaccines involves the use of a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal.  Thimerosal has been used as a preserving agent in some vaccines and other products since the 1930s. According to the CDC, no harmful effects have been reported from the amount of thimerosal used in vaccines, other than expected minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.  In July 1999, the Public Health Service (PHS) agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and vaccine manufacturers agreed to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as a precautionary measure.  With the exception of some flu vaccines, no U.S. vaccines used to protect preschool children against infectious disease contain thimerosal as a preservative. A preservative-free version of the inactivated flu vaccine (containing trace amounts of thimerosal) is available.

Vaccines cause autism

Because symptoms of autism usually occur around the same time as the first measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) and other immunizations, some have assumed that there is a link between thimerosal and autism.  However, the MMR vaccines have never contained thimerosal, and neither have the vaccines for chickenpox or inactivated polio. In 2004, an Institutes of Medicine report concluded that there is no association between autism and vaccines that contained thimerosal as a preservative.  Diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella can cause serious health problems, disabilities, and even death. Your children face a much greater risk from an infectious disease than they do from its vaccine.

** Information for this blog was taken from Web MD, http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/immunizations-vaccines-power-of-preparation