on new year's resolutions

So, I know it's not Sunday, but I'd like to talk a bit about New Year's Resolutions, or just about goals in general.

Goals are great. Goals are necessary. They can help you be more motivated, more productive, and more accomplished. So, in many ways, goals are healthy, and thus relevant to this blog.

I know there are a lot of mixed feelings out there about New Year's Resolutions. And, it's true, you should always have goals, not just at the start of the New Year. But January 1st can be a great time to reevaluate your goals, which is important, valuable, and effective.

But where people go wrong is that they make big, sweeping, general goals that have no direction or strategy or heart behind them, and as a result they're never accomplished and next January 1st they end up back on the list. One way to prevent this is by setting S.M.A.R.T goals Note: I did not come up with this acronym. But I do use this method both in my work and personal life.

S.M.A.R.T stands for

Specific

Measurable

Achievable

Results-Focused

Time-bound

So if a typical goal would be "lose weight,"  a S.M.A.R.T goal would be "Lose 15 pounds by April 1st, 2015." The S.M.A.R.T. goal is specific in that the number of pounds one wishes to shed is clarified. It is measurable in that I can step on a scale and see if I've accomplished my goal (and check my progress along the way). It is achievable that I am not expecting to move mountains. I am simply hoping to lose about 1.25 lbs a week for 12 weeks, a medically-sound and reasonable number. It is results-focused in that the goal is measuring an outcome. And it is time-bound in that it has a specific deadline. 

What makes them so effective is that S.M.A.R.T goals come built in with accountability and a plan-of-action. By setting your goals S.M.A.R.Tly, you've already given yourself a huge advantage because you've made your goal possible and put yourself in the mindset that you can do it. When a goal is too vague, you can easily push it off, deem it impossible, or have no way to know when it is finished.

Next, I suggest you put your goal(s) somewhere you can see it (them). This can add that extra layer of accountability and ensure you don't lose track of your intentions as January 1st becomes January 2nd, then 3rd, then 4th, and so on. I am going to put mine right here for that exact reason.

1. Lose 27 lbs September 24th, 2015.

2. Finish 52 books by December 31st, 2015.

3. Post 1 blog post per week on Sundays. 

4. Read 10 articles (scientific, economic, or news) per week.

You'll be able to keep up with my progress on at least the first 3. 1 will be documented in my "Personal Health Initiatives" up there at the top. 2 will be tracked on Goodreads. And 3, of course, will be right here! Check back on Sunday for that post I have promised and in the meantime, set your own S.M.A.R.T goals!

Have a healthcare question you want answered? A topic you want addressed? Email whatthehealthnow@gmail.com!

on the rising costs of healthcare, moral hazard, and what this means for you (and the entertainment industry)

Last week, we talked a bit about the basic health insurance vocabulary you gotta know. This week, we're going to make some use of what we learned to better understand a current economic phenomenon.

One of my favorite concepts in health economics is moral hazard–the idea that someone is more likely to undergo a costly or risky situation if they know they are protected by against the cost/risk because someone else will be footing the bill. Putting this in healthcare terms, if you know you have a great coverage plan, you are more likely to seek medical care, or visit the doctor for a sniffle, or undergo expensive but questionably necessary procedures. This is because the cost to you will be severely reduced from what it otherwise would have been because of your insurance coverage.

Moral hazard is a tricky lil bugger, not because it's particularly hard to understand, but rather because it's hard to overcome. One of the ways insurance companies (or employers) are dealing with the rising American healthcare spending is by raising the out-of-pocket costs, mostly deductibles, for consumers and thus reducing the moral hazard that results from healthcare coverage. Thus, we've seen a reduction in the rate of healthcare spending (finally), which helps reduce the federal deficit. However...

These increasing out-of-pocket costs¹ are causing some people to avoid even routine healthcare altogether. They're also having an effect on other markets–Americans are spending less on entertainment, retail, and childcare. ² This only makes sense. If Joe Schmo's bank account were a pie, when the slice that is his out-of-pocket healthcare spending increases, there is less pie available for other expenses.

Healthcare in the United States is expensive, but necessary. While you may not be able to control an increase in your deductible, you can shop around for a reliable doc, research procedures to determine their necessity, and practice preventative measures (washing your hands regularly, eating well, exercising, sleeping!!!) to keep costs low. To start the New Year right, next week I'll discuss some best practices for staying healthy [thereby avoiding hefty healthcare spending] and happy in 2015. And since I won't see you until then, Happy New Year!

Have a healthcare question you want answered? A topic you want addressed? Email whatthehealthnow@gmail.com!

1. Increased costs of mobile phones are also contributing to the reduced spending in other markets.
2. Knutson, Ryan, and Theo Francis. "Basic Costs Squeeze Families." Wall Street Journal. 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.

on health insurance 101

Not all health insurance plans are alike. And in order to truly pick the plan that is best for you (or to understand your current plan), it's important to know both a.) what each type of plan entails and b.) what else is out there.

There are three main categories of health insurance plans:

Health Maintenance Organization (HMO)

Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)

Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO)

PPOs, followed by HMOs, are the most common type of coverage. So how do they differ?

Under an HMO, you first choose a Primary Care Physician (PCP). This PCP is your home base, so to speak. He or she will need to refer you to any specialists you may need within a network of pre-selected providers. So, let's say you have been having terrible foot pain. You'd first see your PCP, who would refer you to a podiatrist within the network. These network providers, i.e. doctors who have opted to participate in the specific plan, are the often the only ones your insurance will cover visits to. Usually, visits to out-of-network providers will not be covered.

PPOs give you a bit more flexibility in that you don't have to go through your PCP and you are welcome to visit service providers outside of your network. However, out-of-network providers will be at a higher cost, such that you will pay more out-of-pocket if you choose to go outside of your network (hence the origin of the "preferred" part of preferred provider organization). Additionally, you will likely have to pay a deductible during your visit.

Okay, let's pause here and go over the vocab of what consumers pay out-of-pocket. I just mentioned a deductible. This is the amount you pay yourself before your insurance coverage. Once you've paid 100% of your deductible, your insurance plan will cover the rest. In the case of a PPO, seeing an out-of-network provider means you will have to pay a higher deductible.

This premium is your periodic payment into the health insurance plan. Generally, your premium and deductible are inversely related: a higher premium means a lower deductible, and vice versa.

In addition to the deductible and premium there is also a copay. This is the flat rate amount you pay during doctors visit or for prescriptions. For example, on my plan, when I go in for my annual physical, I pay $10 copay during my visit.

Last but certainly not least, there is the coinsurance payment. This is the amount you pay after your copay and deductible and after the insurance company has paid their portion. If my coinsurance is 20% of remaining fees after the deductible, I pay the 20% of the bill that is left once my deductible is paid and my insurance pays their 80%.

Okay, let's move on to EPOs.

EPOs are like PPOs in that you usually don't need a PCP referral, but similarly to HMOs, out-of-network providers are not covered, unless in cases of emergencies.

HMOs, PPOs, and EPOs are only the most common plans, not the only ones available, and the details of each vary a bit based on your specific insurance provider. What works best for you complete depends on what is available through your employer, what you personally can afford, or your personal necessities. If you are rarely sick or injured, a plan with a low premium and high deductibles may work better for you. If you're really into extreme sports and breaking bones, you should probably look into a higher premium that gives you a lower deductible.

Hopefully, this post has given you a little better understanding of health insurance jargon and the most popular plans available. However, if you're picking a new plan, it is still up to you to research what specific plans are out there (and available to you) and to decide what works best for you.

Alright, that's enough for now. Go get back to your families, enjoy your holidays, and check back in next Sunday for a new post!

Have a healthcare question you want answered? A topic you want addressed? Email whatthehealthnow@gmail.com!

on the unveiling of fluff & stuff 2.0!

I had mentioned previously that the blog was going to be receiving a makeover. I'll be kicking off the new era of Fluff & Stuff with this post. But first, a little background on the who, what, and why...

Who: I am two academic quarters away from B.A.s in Biology and Public Policy, but my main focus for the past year or so has been healthcare policy. In addition to my coursework, I have worked closely with doctors and nurses in the hospital setting as well as conducted my own research into the current healthcare system. While I do not have a formal economics background (though my boyfriend does, and will be assisting if/when he's needed) I have taken a significant amount of coursework, including at the graduate level, in healthcare and behavioral economics. And I've now got brand new Wall Street Journal and The Economist subscriptions as well as access to all my university's resources to help ensure I'm keep y'all up to date with the most accurate information.

What: My goal here is to explain, in an easily digestible manner, aspects of the healthcare industry on a behavioral economic level as well as some of the things anyone entering or already in the market should know, such as, what is a PPO? Each week will feature a different story, be it an explanation of a facet of our healthcare industry, a summary of recent breaking news, or a little healthcare history.

Why?: One thing I've realized is that people are generally un- or misinformed of many of the basics of the health industry, even though it is something we constantly come face-to-face with in our daily life. This blog intends to look at all aspects of the industry, from Obamacare, to what all the difference health insurance plans are, to the history and development of those nutrition labels you see on all your food.

on bad journalism: part II

I have realized recently that very few people understand how to source check. Facebook has become (among other things) a cesspool for ignorant debates of ridiculously biased or misinformed articles.

I don't wish to use this post to spew judgment, but rather want to raise awareness that there is a lot of bad journalism out there and that it is very important, whether posting an article on Facebook or using it in an academic paper, to check your sources.

Just one of the Facebook posts that inspired this entry.

It's important to note that all journalism is biased. News sources get to choose the articles they run, which facts they convey, the language they use. However, reputable journalism is based on well-checked facts and is held to a high standard of ethics. 


PewResearch conducted the Journalism Project to help define the 9 Core Principles of Journalism:

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.

2. Its first loyalty is to its citizens.

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Pew Research. Principles of Journalism. Accessed from: http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/.

Where I see most of these sensational news sources, such as The Conservative Times, fail is in 1, 3, 8, and perhaps an over-use of 9. These sources have an obligation only towards a truth which serves their political purpose. They do not wholly embrace a system of verification. In fact, their fact checking is near non-existent. These sources pass opinion off as fact on readers who don't know any better or who don't wish to know any better, which is their freedom of speech. As a result, misinformed or intolerant readers stick to these sources that only confirm their pre-existing beliefs. In this way, the sources contribute to an ugly cycle of an ignorant public.

NPR has an Ethics Handbook which perhaps covers the bases of journalistic accuracy in a more digestible way, that can be utilized by readers as well:

Selected Excerpts from NPR's Accuracy Guidelines

Edit like a prosecutor.

Good editors should test, probe, and challenge reporters, always with the goal of making NPR's stories as good (and therefore as accurate) as possible.

Take special care with news that might cause grief or damage reputations.

Guard against subjective errors.

When quoting or paraphrasing anyone  - whether in a blog post, an online story or in an on-air “actuality” – consider whether the source would agree with the interpretation, keeping in mind that sources may sometimes parse their words even though we accurately capture their meaning. An actuality from someone we interview or a speaker at an event should reflect accurately what that person was asked, was responding to or was addressing.Be able to identify the source of each fact you report.

Give preference to primary sources.

(i.e. information directly from a first-hand account, such as a witness, rather than a second-hand source who heard from someone or third-hand source who heard from someone who heard from someone...and so on.)

Don't just spread information. Be careful and skeptical.

Be vigilant about presenting data accurately.

It’s easy to represent data inaccurately or misleadingly, especially in charts and infographics. Double-check your numbers and the way you portray them to make sure you’re imparting the proper information.

Source: NPR. Accuracy. NPR Ethics Handbook. Accessed from: http://ethics.npr.org/category/a1-accuracy/.

Again, no journalism is unbiased. However, some journalism is more accurate than others. When reading articles or preparing to site sources, make sure you are being a critical reader and judging the articles by the same guidelines news sources should be judging themselves. Is it fair? Are they using primary sources who are accurate cited? Are they clearly injecting opinion that is not supported by reputable facts, i.e. primary sources? 

A little education can teach readers tune a critical eye for good, or bad, sources. I don't mean to harp on NPR, but their thorough and publicly available Ethics Handbook makes it an excellent starting point for learning how to read critically. For example, they even list case studies of when they went wrong, including how they went wrong. Studying these examples can give some insight into what a reader should be looking for.

As always, the key takeaway is this: question everything. No single news source has all the information and can give you the entire story. Accurately informing oneself requires thorough investigation of multiple sources with different political viewpoints and perspectives to truly be well-informed. 

Think about it. If you were to, say, get in a fight with your younger sister, would you want Mom or Dad to only ask your sister what happened? Would you even want them to only ask your young brother, who had been standing by? Or, if this hypothetical situation is lost on your because you don't have siblings or have never fought with them because you're part god, imagine if you were accused of a crime. Would you only want the judge or jury to listen to the plaintiff? 

Be smart out there, people!

on time management

With finals season right on the horizon, I thought this post would be particularly fitting. I currently have to prepare a presentation for a client due at the end of the calendar year, have a final on Saturday morning, have a final Tuesday morning, have to submit my final BA thesis proposal before the end of the quarter, am wrapping up my term as my sorority's President, am finishing up a write-up of my research for a fellowship grant due at the end of the calendar year, have to complete the patient interviews for a health policy study I'm assisting on, and I'm applying to jobs for after graduation.

I have never missed an assignment. I have never even turned one in late without obtaining professor approval first. But I have had a lot of stressful days and nights where I'm struggling to get it all done at the expense of my sleep schedule, social life, or sanity.

This obviously is unideal. Poor time management jeopardizes the quality of work produced and burns you out, affecting the effort you have left to give to other assignments. So here are some of my best practices for staying organized and managing your precious time well.

1.) Set daily goals.

Every morning, I wake up and write down 5-10 goals I have for the day. These can be simple little things like "Drop off dry cleaning" or "Email Joann about ______." They can also be much larger, such as "Study physics for 4 hours" or "Finish fellowship proposal." I try to limit myself to 3 big projects a day. I then set these as "Tasks" on my Google Calendar. Then I get to check off each goal as you complete it. I like the app Wunderlist as well. 

2.) Limit distractions. 

If you are working on something that doesn't require being plugged in, do not plug yourself in. Disable Wifi, put on Airplane mode. I am always surprised by how much I accomplish as soon as I stop texting/Facebooking/e-mailing and start working.

3.) Take Breaks

Ah now this is a tricky one, that can be easily abused. Let me clarify. If you are stuck on a, let's say, physics concept and you have now spent a good 45 minutes on it, close your book, stand up, walk around a little bit. I like to do a lap around the 1st floor of the library, say hi to a few friends, and get some coffee before I return to it. Sometimes I'll go complete another assignment or task.  Usually, taking that time to clear my head means I come back stronger and suddenly, something clicks. This also works for me with video games.

4.) Spend less time worrying, more time doing

A common inflicting my friends and I tend to have (and perhaps the entirety of my college) is to spend a huge portion of time fretting over the amount of work we have to complete. Don't do this. Make your list in the morning, add to it as necessary, and get 'er done. The more time spent worrying, the more you SHOULD worry. It takes up time, it affects your work quality...Very bad negative feedback loop.

5.) Reflect upon your day 

Before bed (yes you heard me, go to bed!!), review your day. Admire what you've accomplished, drag tasks you didn't complete onto the next day so you can do them first thing in the morning, and assess what went well or not-so well so you can learn from your mistakes. This is so important, and so rarely done. Self-assessment can be the difference between improvement and stagnation. And it doesn't need to be an official type deal where you sit across a desk from yourself. Hell, do it on the toilet. But do it!

With regard to the last one, some self-reflection has revealed that this blog is going to need a major revamping post finals. COMING SOON: fluff & stuff & more stuff 2.0.

on being skeptical of journalism: Part I

I get it, journalism is hard. Less and less people are subscribing to newspapers and it's no secret that people like cheap thrills. But an article in the Chicago Tribune last week stooped low, far too low to not call them out for it.

The article was about a set of bond deals intended to earn money for the Chicago Public Schools system that ended up doing the opposite. In it, the Tribune went to town on some of the only people attempting, regardless of success, to raise money for our underfunded education system.

I'm not going to pretend that I know much about bond trading, but I know it's kinda like playing the stock market. You win some, you lose some.

Regardless, this post is not about whether the article was worthy of publication or not. This article is about one particularly shitty approach they took to turn their reader against, once again, one of the only people actually attempting to financially assist the underfunded CPS system. But, once again, their objective is besides the point. She could have been raising money for terrorist rings and I would have still found this approach immensely offensive.

Okay, I am rambling. Time to get to the point. Here is a direct quote from the article (appropriately in Courier font) which you can read in its entirety here:

"Cepeda has an MBA from the University of Chicago and spent more than 10 years as a banker before founding A.C. Advisory. She also married into one of the most influential political families on Chicago's South Side. Her late husband, Harvard-trained lawyer Albert Maule, was a grandson of Corneal Davis, a longtime state senator known for delivering black votes for Chicago's Democratic machine. Maule later was appointed to the city's police board by then-Mayor Richard M. Daley.

"Five months before Maule died of cancer in 1995, he helped Cepeda start A.C. Advisory, according to a 2013 Tribune profile. The firm got its first contract with CPS months later, and Cepeda continues to advise the district and the city. A.C. Advisory received about $4.7 million in fees on CPS deals from 1996 through 2013."

Okay, so lets dissect this a bit. They begin with the fact that Ms. Cepeda has an MBA from one of the best business schools in the world and how she spent 10 years in finance prior to starting her business. But, oh wait, don't be fooled, they continue--"she also married into one of the most influential political families on Chicago's South Side." 

And if that isn't dirty enough, they KEEP GOING. "Five months before [her late husband] died of cancer in 1995, he helped Cepeda start A.C. Advisory, according to a 2013 Tribune profile. The firm got its first contract with CPS months later, and Cepeda continues to advise the district and the city. A.C. Advisory received about $4.7 million in fees on CPS deals from 1996 through 2013."

That's right. Now, Cepeda, a Chicago Booth graduate and an accomplished banker, established her firm and got deals with CPS thanks to her husband, who was political royalty in the South Side (Chicago's utter disregard of the South Side in all things political, financial, and otherwise important can be topic for another post). 

But, since they mention it, why don't we go and check out that 2013 Tribune profile, appropriately titled 

Adela Cepeda carved her own path to success

LOL!!!! Yes, you read that right. The Tribune published another article last year in which they praised Cepeda for being a self-made woman. This year, they decided to instead spin her as a husband-made wife. What were you thinking, Jason Grotto and Heather Gillers? But what do you have to say for yourself, Chicago Tribune??

The evidence is much more compelling in your 2013 article. For example, what they don't mention in the recent article is that she met her husband as an undergraduate at HARVARD. Yes, that's right. She was accepted as a Latina female to the most competitive University in the world. Ms. Cepeda came to Chicago to be with her husband whom she met at Harvard, and who was an attorney from Connecticut but had a grandfather who was a state senator from the South Side of Chicago. Cepeda, herself, ascended to Vice President of Smith Barney.

The 2013 article reads:

"Five months before Maule died in 1995, at age 40, he helped his wife draw up papers for A.C. Advisory Inc., a firm focusing on municipal finance."

The recent article says:

"Five months before Maule died of cancer in 1995, he helped Cepeda start A.C. Advisory...The firm got its first contract with CPS months later, and Cepeda continues to advise the district and the city. A.C. Advisory received about $4.7 million in fees on CPS deals from 1996 through 2013." 

You don't have to be a comparative literature major to realize this shows a blatant lack of integrity in the 2014 article, which purposefully implies that Maule used his family's political history to gather clients for Cepeda and that it began a precedent of an unqualified wife handling and receiving big chunks of tax payer dollars. 

The good news is, Grotto is off to Harvard in the Fall, where he, like Cepeda, can study finance, economics, and accounting and can give journalism a rest. I'm still not sure what Heather's excuse for demeaning the success of another woman is, but maybe she got that from her husband as well.

Again, I get it. Journalism is hard and journalists have to try more and more to make a story. But please be skeptical of all that you read, people. And all that you hear, too. 

Over and out,
-r