Generic cialis 10mg online

Patients Figure generic cialis 10mg online 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and Randomization generic cialis 10mg online. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir generic cialis 10mg online group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1).

Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients generic cialis 10mg online had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had generic cialis 10mg online completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died.

Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group generic cialis 10mg online and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit. The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the generic cialis 10mg online 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1.

Table 1 generic cialis 10mg online. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of erectile dysfunction treatment during the generic cialis 10mg online trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) were generic cialis 10mg online Hispanic or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days generic cialis 10mg online between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix. 272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria generic cialis 10mg online on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4.

There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome Figure generic cialis 10mg online 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates generic cialis 10mg online of Cumulative Recoveries.

Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen generic cialis 10mg online. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score generic cialis 10mg online of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E).

Table 2. Table 2 generic cialis 10mg online. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 generic cialis 10mg online. Figure 3.

Time to generic cialis 10mg online Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients generic cialis 10mg online. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 generic cialis 10mg online to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and generic cialis 10mg online Table 2). Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 generic cialis 10mg online patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively.

For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 generic cialis 10mg online (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate generic cialis 10mg online ratio for recovery, 1.31.

95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients) generic cialis 10mg online. Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms generic cialis 10mg online had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) generic cialis 10mg online (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig.

S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2).

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10). Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1. Table 1.

Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected erectile dysfunction treatment while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits.

The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. treatment Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination.

After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3).

erectile dysfunction Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2.

erectile dysfunction Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live cialis PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants.

Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A).

Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens. The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). erectile dysfunction Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination.

After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig.

S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-cialis neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type cialis–neutralizing activity capable of reducing erectile dysfunction infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273.

erectile dysfunction T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig.

S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020.

Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment.

Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments.

Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the erectile dysfunction treatment cialis. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization.

For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1).

To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk.

(One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest. Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo.

Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests. However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for erectile dysfunction, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure.

This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta. Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).

Persons with symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment or with PCR-proven erectile dysfunction were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early . Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms. Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent.

We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14. A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status.

Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country. A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants. Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses. We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the erectile dysfunction in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased.

Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, erectile dysfunction treatment–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to erectile dysfunction treatment testing if symptomatic. However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. erectile dysfunction treatment–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for erectile dysfunction on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria.

Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for erectile dysfunction treatment or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed erectile dysfunction , the incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]). Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text. Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible erectile dysfunction treatment–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with erectile dysfunction treatment would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic s, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis. This reestimation, which used the incidence of new s in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic s.

Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility. At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of s in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue.

Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test. Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with erectile dysfunction treatment developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event.

Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs. Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the erectile dysfunction treatment cialis by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of treatments, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and treatment distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for erectile dysfunction treatment countermeasure research and development across the U.S.

Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives. To deliver tens of millions of doses of a erectile dysfunction treatment — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S.

Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such treatments available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a treatment effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola cialis epidemic spurred rapid treatment development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials. OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. erectile dysfunction treatment development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July.

Our objectives are based on advances in treatment platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious treatment design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and erectile dysfunction disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected treatments. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S. Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder treatment development or deployment.OWS selected treatment candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the cialis, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021.

Candidates had to be based on treatment-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021. Finally, candidates had to use one of four treatment-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective treatment against erectile dysfunction treatment. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two treatment candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best treatment platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting erectile dysfunction treatment, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations.

In addition, advancing eight treatments in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate treatment program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout. Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate treatment.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA.

To permit appropriate comparisons among the treatment candidates and to optimize treatment utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the erectile dysfunction Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their treatments are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each treatment candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of treatment doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate treatment development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards. The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each treatment for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit treatment administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight treatments in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies.

Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials. The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA treatment in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA treatment also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector treatment developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S.

Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 erectile dysfunction treatment replication-defective live-vector treatment has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S. Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein treatment in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA treatments are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for treatment distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive treatment doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each treatment and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these treatments will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Get cialis prescription online

Cialis
Cialis daily
Fildena
Tadora
Kamagra
Viagra sublingual
How long does work
Yes
No
Yes
Online
Yes
Yes
Prescription
No
No
25mg
No
50mg
No
For womens
20mg
In online pharmacy
In online pharmacy
Register first
100mg
Register first
Best way to use
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
USA pharmacy price
Stuffy or runny nose
Flu-like symptoms
Nausea
Upset stomach
Memory problems
Muscle pain
Take with high blood pressure
You need consultation
Ask your Doctor
Yes
No
No
Ask your Doctor

Credit walgreens cialis 10mg price get cialis prescription online. IStock Share Fast Facts New @HopkinsMedicine study finds African-American women with common form of hair loss at increased risk of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet New study in @JAMADerm shows most common form of alopecia (hair loss) in African-American women associated with higher risks of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet In a study of medical records gathered on hundreds of thousands of African-American women, Johns Hopkins researchers say they have evidence that women with a common form of hair loss have an increased chance of developing uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids.In a report on the research, published in the December 27 issue of JAMA Dermatology, the researchers call on physicians who treat women with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) to make patients aware that they may be at increased risk for fibroids and should be screened for the condition, particularly if they have symptoms such as heavy bleeding and pain. CCCA predominantly affects get cialis prescription online black women and is the most common form of permanent alopecia in this population.

The excess scar tissue that forms as a result of this type of hair loss may also explain the higher risk for uterine fibroids, which are characterized by fibrous growths in the lining of the womb. Crystal Aguh, M.D., assistant professor of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says the scarring associated with CCCA is similar to the scarring associated with excess fibrous tissue elsewhere in the body, a situation that may explain why women with this type of hair loss are at a higher risk for fibroids.People of African descent, she notes, are more prone to develop other disorders of abnormal scarring, termed fibroproliferative disorders, such as keloids (a type of raised scar after trauma), scleroderma (an autoimmune disorder marked by thickening of the skin as well as internal organs), some types of lupus and get cialis prescription online clogged arteries. During a four-year period from 2013-2017, the researchers analyzed patient data from the Johns Hopkins electronic medical record system (Epic) of 487,104 black women ages 18 and over.

The prevalence of those with fibroids was compared in patients with get cialis prescription online and without CCCA. Overall, the researchers found that 13.9 percent of women with CCCA also had a history of uterine fibroids compared to only 3.3 percent of black women without the condition. In absolute numbers, out of the 486,000 women who were reviewed, 16,212 had fibroids.Within that population, 447 had CCCA, of which 62 had fibroids.

The findings translate to a fivefold increased risk of uterine fibroids in women with CCCA, compared to age, sex and race matched controls get cialis prescription online. Aguh cautions that their study does not suggest any cause and effect relationship, or prove a common cause for both conditions. €œThe cause of the link between the two get cialis prescription online conditions remains unclear,” she says.

However, the association was strong enough, she adds, to recommend that physicians and patients be made aware of it. Women with this type of scarring alopecia should be screened not only for get cialis prescription online fibroids, but also for other disorders associated with excess fibrous tissue, Aguh says. An estimated 70 percent of white women and between 80 and 90 percent of African-American women will develop fibroids by age 50, according to the NIH, and while CCCA is likely underdiagnosed, some estimates report a prevalence of rates as high as 17 percent of black women having this condition.

The other authors get cialis prescription online on this paper were Ginette A. Okoye, M.D. Of Johns Hopkins and Yemisi Dina of Meharry Medical College.Credit.

The New England Journal of Medicine Share Fast Facts This study clears up get cialis prescription online how big an effect the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different cancer types. - Click to Tweet The number of mutations in a tumor’s DNA is a good predictor of whether it will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors. - Click to Tweet The “mutational burden,” or the number of mutations present in a tumor’s DNA, get cialis prescription online is a good predictor of whether that cancer type will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors, a new study led by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center researchers shows.

The finding, published in the Dec. 21 New England Journal of Medicine, could be used get cialis prescription online to guide future clinical trials for these drugs. Checkpoint inhibitors are a relatively new class of drug that helps the immune system recognize cancer by interfering with mechanisms cancer cells use to hide from immune cells.

As a result, the drugs cause the immune system go to fight cancer in the same way that it would fight an . These medicines have had remarkable success in treating some types of cancers that historically have had poor prognoses, such as advanced get cialis prescription online melanoma and lung cancer. However, these therapies have had little effect on other deadly cancer types, such as pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma.

The mutational burden of certain tumor types has previously been proposed as an explanation for why certain cancers respond better than others to immune checkpoint inhibitors says study leader Mark Yarchoan, get cialis prescription online M.D., chief medical oncology fellow. Work by Dung Le, M.D., associate professor of oncology, and other researchers at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and its Bloomberg~Kimmel Cancer Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy showed that colon cancers that carry a high number of mutations are more likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors than those that have fewer mutations. However, exactly how big an effect the mutational get cialis prescription online burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different cancer types was unclear.

To investigate this question, Yarchoan and colleagues Alexander Hopkins, Ph.D., research fellow, and Elizabeth Jaffee, M.D., co-director of the Skip Viragh Center for Pancreas Cancer Clinical Research and Patient Care and associate director of the Bloomberg~Kimmel Institute, combed the medical literature for the results of clinical trials using checkpoint inhibitors on various different types of cancer. They combined get cialis prescription online these findings with data on the mutational burden of thousands of tumor samples from patients with different tumor types. Analyzing 27 different cancer types for which both pieces of information were available, the researchers found a strong correlation.

The higher a cancer type’s mutational burden tends to be, the more likely it is to respond to checkpoint inhibitors. More than get cialis prescription online half of the differences in how well cancers responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors could be explained by the mutational burden of that cancer. €œThe idea that a tumor type with more mutations might be easier to treat than one with fewer sounds a little counterintuitive.

It’s one of those things that doesn’t sound right when you hear it,” says get cialis prescription online Hopkins. €œBut with immunotherapy, the more mutations you have, the more chances the immune system has to recognize the tumor.” Although this finding held true for the vast majority of cancer types they studied, there were some outliers in their analysis, says Yarchoan. For example, Merkel cell cancer, a rare and highly aggressive skin cancer, tends to have a moderate number of mutations yet responds extremely get cialis prescription online well to checkpoint inhibitors.

However, he explains, this cancer type is often caused by a cialis, which seems to encourage a strong immune response despite the cancer’s lower mutational burden. In contrast, the most common type of colorectal cancer has moderate mutational burden, yet responds poorly to checkpoint inhibitors for reasons that are still unclear. Yarchoan notes that these findings could help guide clinical trials to test checkpoint inhibitors on get cialis prescription online cancer types for which these drugs haven’t yet been tried.

Future studies might also focus on finding ways to prompt cancers with low mutational burdens to behave like those with higher mutational burdens so that they will respond better to these therapies. He and his colleagues plan to extend this line of research by investigating whether mutational burden get cialis prescription online might be a good predictor of whether cancers in individual patients might respond well to this class of immunotherapy drugs. €œThe end goal is precision medicine—moving beyond what’s true for big groups of patients to see whether we can use this information to help any given patient,” he says.

Yarchoan receives funding from the Norman &. Ruth Rales Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Through a licensing agreement with Aduro Biotech, Jaffee has the potential to receive royalties in the future..

Credit http://luxurypropertiesofmarcoisland.com/2011/06/marco_island_luxury/ generic cialis 10mg online. IStock Share Fast Facts New @HopkinsMedicine study finds African-American women with common form of hair loss at increased risk of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet New study in @JAMADerm shows most common form of alopecia (hair loss) in African-American women associated with higher risks of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet In a study of medical records gathered on hundreds of thousands of African-American women, Johns Hopkins researchers say they have evidence that women with a common form of hair loss have an increased chance of developing uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids.In a report on the research, published in the December 27 issue of JAMA Dermatology, the researchers call on physicians who treat women with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) to make patients aware that they may be at increased risk for fibroids and should be screened for the condition, particularly if they have symptoms such as heavy bleeding and pain. CCCA predominantly affects black women and is the most common form of permanent alopecia in this generic cialis 10mg online population.

The excess scar tissue that forms as a result of this type of hair loss may also explain the higher risk for uterine fibroids, which are characterized by fibrous growths in the lining of the womb. Crystal Aguh, M.D., assistant professor of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says the scarring associated with CCCA is similar to generic cialis 10mg online the scarring associated with excess fibrous tissue elsewhere in the body, a situation that may explain why women with this type of hair loss are at a higher risk for fibroids.People of African descent, she notes, are more prone to develop other disorders of abnormal scarring, termed fibroproliferative disorders, such as keloids (a type of raised scar after trauma), scleroderma (an autoimmune disorder marked by thickening of the skin as well as internal organs), some types of lupus and clogged arteries. During a four-year period from 2013-2017, the researchers analyzed patient data from the Johns Hopkins electronic medical record system (Epic) of 487,104 black women ages 18 and over.

The prevalence of those with fibroids was compared in patients with and without generic cialis 10mg online CCCA. Overall, the researchers found that 13.9 percent of women with CCCA also had a history of uterine fibroids compared to only 3.3 percent of black women without the condition. In absolute numbers, out of the 486,000 women who were reviewed, 16,212 had fibroids.Within that population, 447 had CCCA, of which 62 had fibroids.

The findings translate to a fivefold increased risk of uterine fibroids in women with CCCA, generic cialis 10mg online compared to age, sex and race matched controls. Aguh cautions that their study does not suggest any cause and effect relationship, or prove a common cause for both conditions. €œThe cause generic cialis 10mg online of the link between the two conditions remains unclear,” she says.

However, the association was strong enough, she adds, to recommend that physicians and patients be made aware of it. Women with this type of scarring alopecia should be screened not only for fibroids, but also for other generic cialis 10mg online disorders associated with excess fibrous tissue, Aguh says. An estimated 70 percent of white women and between 80 and 90 percent of African-American women will develop fibroids by age 50, according to the NIH, and while CCCA is likely underdiagnosed, some estimates report a prevalence of rates as high as 17 percent of black women having this condition.

The other authors on this paper generic cialis 10mg online were Ginette A. Okoye, M.D. Of Johns Hopkins and Yemisi Dina of Meharry Medical College.Credit.

The New England Journal of Medicine Share Fast Facts This generic cialis 10mg online study clears up how big an effect the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different cancer types. - Click to Tweet The number of mutations in a tumor’s DNA is a good predictor of whether it will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors. - Click to Tweet The “mutational burden,” or the number of mutations present in a tumor’s DNA, is a good predictor of whether that cancer type will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs generic cialis 10mg online known as checkpoint inhibitors, a new study led by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center researchers shows.

The finding, published in the Dec. 21 New generic cialis 10mg online England Journal of Medicine, could be used to guide future clinical trials for these drugs. Checkpoint inhibitors are a relatively new class of drug that helps the immune system recognize cancer by interfering with mechanisms cancer cells use to hide from immune cells.

As a result, the drugs cause the immune system to fight cancer in the same way that it would fight an . These medicines have had remarkable generic cialis 10mg online success in treating some types of cancers that historically have had poor prognoses, such as advanced melanoma and lung cancer. However, these therapies have had little effect on other deadly cancer types, such as pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma.

The mutational burden of certain tumor types has previously been proposed as an explanation for why certain cancers respond better than others to immune checkpoint inhibitors says study leader Mark Yarchoan, M.D., chief medical oncology generic cialis 10mg online fellow. Work by Dung Le, M.D., associate professor of oncology, and other researchers at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and its Bloomberg~Kimmel Cancer Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy showed that colon cancers that carry a high number of mutations are more likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors than those that have fewer mutations. However, exactly how big an effect the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across generic cialis 10mg online many different cancer types was unclear.

To investigate this question, Yarchoan and colleagues Alexander Hopkins, Ph.D., research fellow, and Elizabeth Jaffee, M.D., co-director of the Skip Viragh Center for Pancreas Cancer Clinical Research and Patient Care and associate director of the Bloomberg~Kimmel Institute, combed the medical literature for the results of clinical trials using checkpoint inhibitors on various different types of cancer. They combined these findings with data on the mutational burden of thousands of tumor samples from patients with different tumor generic cialis 10mg online types. Analyzing 27 different cancer types for which both pieces of information were available, the researchers found a strong correlation.

The higher a cancer type’s mutational burden tends to be, the more likely it is to respond to checkpoint inhibitors. More than half of the differences in how well cancers generic cialis 10mg online responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors could be explained by the mutational burden of that cancer. €œThe idea that a tumor type with more mutations might be easier to treat than one with fewer sounds a little counterintuitive.

It’s one of those things that doesn’t sound right when generic cialis 10mg online you hear it,” says Hopkins. €œBut with immunotherapy, the more mutations you have, the more chances the immune system has to recognize the tumor.” Although this finding held true for the vast majority of cancer types they studied, there were some outliers in their analysis, says Yarchoan. For example, Merkel cell cancer, a rare and highly aggressive generic cialis 10mg online skin cancer, tends to have a moderate number of mutations yet responds extremely well to checkpoint inhibitors.

However, he explains, this cancer type is often caused by a cialis, which seems to encourage a strong immune response despite the cancer’s lower mutational burden. In contrast, the most common type of colorectal cancer has moderate mutational burden, yet responds poorly to checkpoint inhibitors for reasons that are still unclear. Yarchoan notes that these findings could generic cialis 10mg online help guide clinical trials to test checkpoint inhibitors on cancer types for which these drugs haven’t yet been tried.

Future studies might also focus on finding ways to prompt cancers with low mutational burdens to behave like those with higher mutational burdens so that they will respond better to these therapies. He and generic cialis 10mg online his colleagues plan to extend this line of research by investigating whether mutational burden might be a good predictor of whether cancers in individual patients might respond well to this class of immunotherapy drugs. €œThe end goal is precision medicine—moving beyond what’s true for big groups of patients to see whether we can use this information to help any given patient,” he says.

Yarchoan receives funding from the Norman &. Ruth Rales Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Through a licensing agreement with Aduro Biotech, Jaffee has the potential to receive royalties in the future..

What side effects may I notice from Cialis?

Side effects that you should report to your doctor or health care professional as soon as possible:

  • allergic reactions like skin rash, itching or hives, swelling of the face, lips, or tongue
  • breathing problems
  • changes in hearing
  • chest pain
  • fast, irregular heartbeat

Side effects that usually do not require medical attention (report to your doctor or health care professional if they continue or are bothersome):

  • back pain
  • dizziness
  • flushing
  • headache
  • indigestion
  • muscle aches
  • stuffy or runny nose

This list may not describe all possible side effects.

Can you take viagra and cialis at the same time

WACO, TX can you take viagra and cialis at the same time – Moving machine parts have the potential to cause serious or fatal see this injuries when safety protections and procedures are ignored, and yet a Waco bath and shower manufacturer once again failed to provide its employees a safe and healthful workplace. An inspection by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration can you take viagra and cialis at the same time in November 2020 found Clarke Products Inc.

Failed to use required machine guards and cited the manufacturer for 19 violations. The violations included willful and repeated failures related to machine guarding and fall protection. Proposed penalties can you take viagra and cialis at the same time total $558,821.

In October 2018, OSHA cited Clarke Products for failing to ensure the use of guards. “The willful can you take viagra and cialis at the same time and repeat violations found during this inspection show Clarke Products’ ignored required worker safety protections,” said OSHA Area Director Timothy Minor in Fort Worth. €œOSHA will cite employers who disregard their legal responsibility to provide workers with a safe workplace.” Headquartered in Colleyville, Clarke Products Inc.

Had approximately 110 employees at its Waco facility at the time of inspection. The company has 15 business days from receipt of citation and penalties to comply, request an can you take viagra and cialis at the same time informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Visit OSHA’s webpage on machine guarding for information on safeguarding equipment and fall protection.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s workers by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. Learn more about OSHA..

WACO, TX – Moving machine parts have the potential to cause serious or fatal injuries when safety protections and procedures are ignored, and yet a Waco bath and shower manufacturer once again failed to provide its employees generic cialis 10mg online a safe and healthful workplace. An inspection by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration in November 2020 found Clarke Products Inc generic cialis 10mg online.

Failed to use required machine guards and cited the manufacturer for 19 violations. The violations included willful and repeated failures related to machine guarding and fall protection. Proposed penalties generic cialis 10mg online total $558,821.

In October 2018, OSHA cited Clarke Products for failing to ensure the use of guards. “The willful and repeat violations found during this inspection show Clarke Products’ ignored required worker safety protections,” generic cialis 10mg online said OSHA Area Director Timothy Minor in Fort Worth. €œOSHA will cite employers who disregard their legal responsibility to provide workers with a safe workplace.” Headquartered in Colleyville, Clarke Products Inc.

Had approximately 110 employees at its Waco facility at the time of inspection. The company has 15 business days from receipt of citation and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before generic cialis 10mg online the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Visit OSHA’s webpage on machine guarding for information on safeguarding equipment and fall protection.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and generic cialis 10mg online healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s workers by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. Learn more about OSHA..

Cialis reviews

Minnesota marketplace highlights and updatesOpen cialis reviews enrollment for 2021 health plans. November 1, cialis reviews 2020 through December 22, 2020. Residents with qualifying events can still enroll or make changes to their 2020 coverage.Insurers implementing modest rate increases for 2021, after three straight years of average rate decreases. Quartz has joined the exchange for 2021, bringing total number of insurers to five.117,520 people enrolled for cialis reviews 2020, a new record for MNsure.Insurer participation in MNsure.

2014 to 2021.Reinsurance program received federal approval, began operation in 2018.With reinsurance, rates decreased for 2018 and again, even more significantly, for 2019. But reinsurance also reduced funding for MinnesotaCare.The elimination of CSR funding further reduced MinnesotaCare funding, but this has been partly restored by a court ruling.MN provided premium relief for non-subsidy-eligible enrollees for 2017 only.Governor vetoed a cialis reviews proposed 2019 switch to HealthCare.gov.MNsure’s small business exchange no longer has any participating insurers.Minnesota health exchange overviewMinnesota’s one of the states fighting the hardest to preserve the Affordable Care Act’s gains. See actions Minnesota has taken.Minnesota’s state-run exchange, MNsure, has five participating insurers for 2021, up from four in 2020. The exchange cialis reviews has more than 117,000 individual market enrollees as of 2020.As a result of the erectile dysfunction treatment cialis, MNsure joined most of the other state-run exchanges in offering a special enrollment period during which people who were uninsured could enroll in a health plan.

MNsure’s special enrollment period began March 23, and continued through April 21. Nearly 9,500 Minnesota residents enrolled in private plans through MNsure during this window, as well as another 13,700 who enrolled in MinnesotaCare or Medicaid (enrollment in those programs is open year-round for eligible residents).Allison O’Toole, who led MNsure as CEO for three years, announced her resignation in March 2018, and the exchange named Nate Clark, the MNsure COO, as cialis reviews acting CEO. A few months later, the MNsure board named Clark as the permanent CEO. O’Toole left MNsure to work as director of state affairs for United States of Care, a non-profit created by Andy Slavitt, who was the acting administrator of CMS under the Obama Administration.Throughout 2017, Minnesotans who bought their own health insurance (on or off-exchange) and weren’t eligible for ACA subsidies were provided with 25 percent premium rebates from the state as a cialis reviews result of S.F.1, signed into law by Governor Dayton in early 2017.

The subsidies helped to offset the large premium increases that applied in Minnesota in 2017, and helped to stabilize the individual health insurance market in 2017. But the premium rebate program expired at the end of 2017.Thanks in large part to the new reinsurance program that Minnesota created (details below), premiums decreased cialis reviews in Minnesota’s individual market in 2018, 2019, and again in 2020, although rates are increasing modestly for 2021. In May 2019, Minnesota leaders reached an agreement on a budget that included an extension of the reinsurance program through 2020 and 2021 (it has already been granted federal approval through the end of 2022, but the state has to continue to cover its share of the cost. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz had hoped to implement a premium subsidy program and a new tax credit in Minnesota starting in cialis reviews 2020.

But a compromise in the budget ended up with the state opting to continue the existing reinsurance program for two more years instead.).But the waiver that provides federal pass-through funding for reinsurance also resulted in a sharp and unexpected decrease in federal funding for MinnesotaCare, the Basic Health Program that provides coverage for people with income between 138 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level (between $16,642 and $24,120 for a single person).In addition, the elimination of federal funding for cost-sharing reductions (CSR) in October 2018 resulted in a funding cut for MinnesotaCare, since the program is funded in large part by federal funds that would otherwise have been used to pay for premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions in the exchange for the population that is instead eligible for MinnesotaCare. After an ensuing legal battle, a judge ordered HHS to restore funding for MinnesotaCare, although a resolution of the situation is ongoing, and the amount that HHS agreed to pay was still less than MinnesotaCare would have received if CSR funding had continued.Open enrollment for cialis reviews 2021 health plans extended through December 22, 2020. Insurers implementing modest rate increases for 2021, after three years of overall rate decreasesMNsure enabled window shopping for 2021 health plans as of October 12, 2020. This gives residents a few weeks to browse cialis reviews the available plans before open enrollment starts on November 1, 2020.

And MNsure has announced that open enrollment will continue through December 22, 2020. That’s a week longer than the open enrollment period that will apply in states that use the cialis reviews federally-run exchange. The flexibility to extend open enrollment is often cited as one of the benefits of having a fully state-run exchange. (MNsure had a similar cialis reviews extension last December, for 2020 health plans).For 2021, Quartz is joining the Minnesota marketplace.

Quartz currently offers plans in Illinois and Wisconsin, and is expanding into Minnesota for 2021. And two of the cialis reviews existing insurers — HealthPartners and UCare — are expanding their coverage areas for 2021 (BluePlus and Medica offer coverage statewide, and will continue to do so in 2021).The following average rate changes have been approved for MNsure’s insurers:Blue Plus. 4.21 percent increase (down from cialis reviews an initially proposed 7.12 percent increase)Group Health/Health Partners (GHI). 0.67 percent increase (down from an initially proposed 4.15 percent increase)Medica.

2.42 percent increase (down from cialis reviews an initially proposed 7.06 percent increase)UCare. 1.6 percent increase (up from an initially proposed 1.39 percent decrease)Quartz. New for 2021, so no applicable rate changePreferredOne Insurance Company, which offers plans outside the exchange, is increasing premiums cialis reviews by 1.05 percent (down from an initially proposed average increase of 5.09 percent). Rate changes in previous years2015.

Average increase of cialis reviews 4.5 percent. MNsure critics characterized the official announcement as misleading as it failed to take into account low-cost 2014 plans from PreferredOne. Consumers who bought a PreferredOne plan through cialis reviews MNsure for 2014 could only renew their policies for 2015 by working directly with the insurer, since PreferredOne stopped offering plans in the exchange at the end of 2014. However, PreferredOne rates went up an average of 63 percent, and consumers didn’t qualify for subsidies if they shopped outside the exchange.

2016. Average increase of 41.4 percent for the individual market, and about 38.5 for plans sold in MNsure (ie, not counting PreferredOne). Rates increased significantly in 2016 across the entire individual market in Minnesota — including plans sold through MNsure, the state-run exchange.Approved rates for 2016 were announced on October 1, 2015, ranging from about 15 percent for Medica to 49 percent for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. In general, the carriers cited higher-than-expected claims costs over the past year, along with the impending phase-out of the ACA’s reinsurance program as justification for their 2016 rate requests.

But Governor Mark Dayton called some of the higher proposed increases “outrageous,” and promised a rigorous review of the filed rate changes and justifications. Ultimately, regulators were able to limit the highest rate increases to 49 percent — as opposed to the 54 percent that had been requested by Blue Plus and BCBS of MN — but the final weighted average rate increase in the individual market in Minnesota still ended up being the highest in the nation. But Minnesota still had the lowest overall premiums in the upper midwest (although Minnesota had the highest average rate increase in the country for 2016, they had the lowest overall rates in the country in 2014 and 2015).Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman called the rate increases “unacceptably high,” and Gov. Dayton noted that he was “extremely unhappy” with the rate changes.

But Rothman noted that his office “objected to all of the rates across the board,” and “squeezed out everything we could that was not actuarial justified.” In other words, the final rates, although much higher than officials and policyholders would have liked, were justified based on medical claims costs — the population enrolled in individual health plans in Minnesota was sicker than expected, and drug costs had been particularly onerous.Only about 55 percent of people who had 2015 coverage through MNsure received premium subsidies. But due to the sharp premium increases, that had increased to about 63 percent for the people who had purchased or renewed coverage as of June 2016.2017. When the Minnesota Department of Commerce announced health insurance rates for 2017 for the individual and small group markets, the rate hikes were somewhat reasonable in the small group market (ranging from a decrease of 1 percent to an increase of 17.8 percent), but the individual market was “experiencing serious disruptions in 2017” and “on the verge of collapse.” The four carriers that offered plans through MNsure had the following average rate increases in 2017:Blue Plus = 55 percentHealthPartners/Group Health (GHI) = 50 percent (HealthPartners is only offering plans in 10 of the 67 counties where they offered plans in 2016. Their enrollment cap is 72,000 for 2017)Medica = 57.5 percent (enrollment cap is 50,000 for 2017)UCare = 66.8 percent (UCare capped enrollment at 30,000 for 2017, but only had 16,000 enrollees in 2016)The enrollment caps that HealthPartners, Medica, and UCare employed for 2017 were approved as part of the rate review process, and are designed to protect carriers from further financial losses as they absorb BCBSMN’s enrollees who are shopping for new coverage during open enrollment.In a news release relating to the rate announcement for 2017, the Minnesota Department of Commerce didn’t mince words.

They noted that the individual market in the state was on the brink of collapse, and that they did everything in their power to save the market. While they succeeded in keeping the state’s individual market viable for 2017, with only one carrier exiting (BCBSMN, although their HMO affiliate, Blue Plus, remained in the exchange), they reiterated very clearly that substantial reforms would be needed to keep the market stable in future years, and highlighted the fact that rates would be sharply higher and that carriers would limit enrollment in 2017.2018. Final rates for 2018 were approved in October 2017 (comprehensive information about the approved rates is here), based on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan (MSPS) being implemented but cost-sharing reductions (CSR) not being funded by the federal government (the cost of CSRs was added to on-exchange Silver plans). Average approved rate changes for MNsure insurers ranged from a 13.3 percent decrease for UCare to a 2.8 percent increase for Blue Plus.

Three of the four MNsure insurers decreased their average premiums for 2018.On September 21, MNsure had posted a notice indicating that if the reinsurance program were not approved, rates would be about 20 percent higher than they would otherwise be in 2018. Fortunately for Minnesota residents, the reinsurance program did receive federal approval, and average rates declined slightly for 2018.But some enrollees who don’t get ACA premium subsidies still experienced a rate increase, due to the termination of the one-year, state-funded 25 percent premium rebates at the end of 2017.PreferredOne, which exited MNsure at the end of 2014 and only offers coverage in the off-exchange market, proposed dramatically lower rates for 2018. A 38 percent average decrease if MSPS were to be approved, and a 23 percent average decrease if not. The 38 percent decrease was implemented, and no adjustments were necessary to account for CSR funding, since PreferredOne does not offer plans in the exchange, and CSRs are only available on silver exchange plans.2019.

Average premium decrease of 12.4 percent. Average premiums dropped for all five insurers in the individual market in 2019. This was the second year in a row of declining rates in Minnesota, but Blue Plus had a small rate increase for 2018, so 2019 was the first year that all five insurers decreased their average rates. Minnesota insurance regulators noted that rates in 2019 were about 20 percent lower than they would have been without the reinsurance program.But most of Minnesota’s insurers charged higher rates in 2019 than they would have if the individual mandate penalty hadn’t been eliminated, and if access to short-term plans and association health plans hadn’t been expanded by the Trump administration.

For example, UCare’s rate filing notes that while average rates were decreasing by about 10 percent, the rate decrease would have been nearly 15 percent if the individual mandate penalty had remained in place.At ACA Signups, Charles Gaba calculated a weighted average rate decrease of 12.4 percent for 2019 in Minnesota, but noted that the average decrease would have been nearly 19 percent without those changes at the federal level.2020. Average premium decrease of 1 percent. Four of the five insurers (including PreferredOne, which only offers coverage off-exchange) in Minnesota’s individual market decreased their average premiums for 2020. This was the third year in a row that average individual market premiums dropped in Minnesota’s individual market, due in large part to the reinsurance program that the state has established.The following average rate changes were implemented for 2020:Blue Plus.

1.5 percent decrease (Blue Plus had originally proposed a 4.8 percent increase)Group Health/Health Partners (GHI). 1.26 percent decrease (GHI had originally proposed a 2.1 percent increase)Medica. 1.01 percent decrease (Medica had originally proposed an average decrease of 1.4 percent)UCare. 0.18 percent increase (UCare originally proposed a 0.3 percent increase)PreferredOne, which only offers off-exchange coverage, reduced their rates by an average of 20 percent, on the heels of an 11 percent decrease in 2019.

MNsure enrollment exceeded 116k in 2018, dropped to 113k for 2019, but grew to more than 1117k in 2020From 2014 through 2018, enrollment in MNsure’s individual market plans increased every year, reaching 116,358 people by 2018. That was the highest open enrollment total in MNsure’s history, despite the shorter enrollment period, which ended in mid-January instead of the end of January (open enrollment for 2018 coverage ended on December 15, 2017 in states that use HealthCare.gov, but MNsure opted to extend their enrollment window that year, and have also extended subsequent enrollment windows).Enrollment dropped for the first time in 2019, when 113,552 people enrolled in individual market plans through MNsure. In most states that use HealthCare.gov, enrollment peaked in 2016 and has been dropping since then. But MNsure’s drop-off in 2019, which amounted to only a 2.4 percent reduction in enrollment, is the only time year-over-year enrollment has declined.

Notably, the ACA’s individual mandate penalty was eliminated as of 2019, and regulations that the Trump administration implemented in late 2018 now make it more feasible for healthy people to use short-term plans instead of ACA-compliant plans (Minnesota has its own rules for short-term plans, but they’re more relaxed than the Obama-era federal rules that applied in 2017 and most of 2018).And for 2020, enrollment grew again, reaching a record high of 117,520 enrollees.Here’s a look at the number of people who have signed up for individual market plans through MNsure during each year’s open enrollment period. These numbers all represent total enrollment at the end of open enrollment. Effectuated enrollment is always lower, and MNsure provides periodic effectuated enrollment data on their board meeting materials page. Insurer participation in MNsure.

2014-20212014. Five insurers offered individual policies through MNsure for 2014. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, HealthPartners/Group Health, Medica, PreferredOne, and UCare. Kaiser Health News reported that Minnesota offered some of the lowest premiums for silver (mid-level) plans in the U.S.

Four of Minnesota’s nine regions made Kaiser’s list of the 10 least expensive places to buy health insurance.2015. But PreferredOne, which offered the lowest rates in the nation in 2014 and captured a large portion of 2014 enrollees, withdrew from MNsure for 2015. PreferredOne said remaining on the exchange was “not administratively and financially sustainable.” A Star Tribune business writer attributed PreferredOne’s departure as a market dynamics issue rather than a problem with MNsure.However, Blue Plus (an affiliate of Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN, offering HMO plans) joined the exchange for 2015, so there were still five insurers offering plans for 2015. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health, Medica, and UCare.

MNsure offered 84 plans statewide, up from 78 for 2014.2016. BCBSMN, Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health, Medica, and UCare offered individual market plans through MNsure for 2016.2017. In an effort to recruit more carriers to offer plans through MNsure for 2017 — particularly outside the Twin Cities metro area — state regulators sent out a request for proposals from health insurers on August 15, 2016. Regulators noted that insurers could propose waivers of regulations in order to make it feasible for them to offer coverage through MNsure, although any such waiver requests would have to be approved by regulators.Steven Parente, a health insurance expert at the University of Minnesota, called the state’s effort to recruit insurers to MNsure a “distress call” and noted that August 15 is awfully late in the year to be putting out a request for insurer participation, given that open enrollment begins November 1.

And ultimately, no new insurers opted to join MNsure for 2017.Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN dropped their individual market PPO plans at the end of 2016 due to significant financial losses. That left Blue Plus (which offered HMOs and covered roughly 13,000 people in 2016 in the individual market) as the only BCBSMN affiliate in the exchange. Roughly 103,000 people had to select new plans during open enrollment.Most of those BCBSMN enrollees had off-exchange coverage, though. There were only about 20,400 MNsure enrollees (a little more than one in five MNsure enrollees) with coverage under BCBSMN who needed to switch to another plan during open enrollment.

BCBSMN had individual PPO options available in all 87 counties in Minnesota through MNsure in 2016, while the Blue Plus coverage area — comprised of four separate HMO networks — was available in 77 of the state’s counties.Nationwide, carriers have been shifting away from PPOs and towards HMOs and EPOs. In Colorado, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield also dropped their PPOs at the end of 2016. In Indiana, there were no PPOs available in the individual market by 2017. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico dropped all of their individual market plans at the end of 2015 except one off-exchange HMO.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas dropped their individual market PPO plans at the end of 2015.The broad network offered by PPOs tends to be attractive to enrollees who have health problems. They’re often willing to pay higher premiums in trade for access to broad network of hospitals and specialists. But PPOs are expensive for carriers, as enrollees don’t need primary care referrals to see specialists, and it’s more challenging for carriers to hold down costs when there are more providers in the network.All of the MNsure carriers except Blue Plus are also limiting their total enrollment for 2017. By November 11, 2016, less than two weeks into open enrollment for 2017 coverage, Medica had hit their 50,000 member enrollment cap for 2017 (including on and off-exchange enrollments, and also accounting for expected renewals of 2016 Medica plans), and their policies were no longer available in the individual market in Minnesota, on or off-exchange.

The only exception was five counties (Benton, Crow Wing, Mille Lacs, Morrison, and Stearns) where Medica agreed not to limit enrollment, as all of the other available carriers in those counties have imposed enrollment caps too. In those five counties, Medica plans continued to be available.At that point, Medica’s market share in MNsure for 2017 stood at 34.2 percent. By December 14, Medica’s market share had dropped to 27.7 percent, as enrollments had continued to climb for the remaining carriers.On January 31, Medica re-opened enrollment for 2017. This was because a smaller-than-expected number of 2016 Medica enrollees renewed their plans for 2017, meaning that the carrier still had some wiggle room under their 50,000 member cap.

At that point, they had room for about 7,000 more enrollees. Medica plans were thus available throughout the duration of the special enrollment period that was added on at the end of open enrollment, and continue to be available for people with qualifying events.2018. Plans continued to be available from Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health (GHI), Medica, UCare. In the months before a decision was reached regarding an extension of the open enrollment window for 2018 plans (the first year that the federal government imposed a shorter, month-and-a-half enrollment window), two of MNsure’s participating insurers had differing positions.

UCare believed the exchange should add an additional two-week special enrollment period, while Medica did not want the exchange to have the option to extend the newly-scheduled six-week enrollment window. Notably, Medica capped their enrollment very early during the 2017 open enrollment period, and while UCare also had an enrollment cap, it was set with a target of nearly doubling their 2016 enrollment. But Medica is the only MNsure insurer that didn’t set an enrollment cap for 2018.As was the case for 2017, enrollment caps were used in the individual market in Minnesota for 2018 by all insurers other than Medica (Medica did have an enrollment cap for 2017, which they hit very early in open enrollment. However, they resumed enrollments at the end of January 2017).

Details about the insurers’ enrollment caps are in the plan binders in SERFF. For 2018, MNsure insurers implemented the following enrollment caps:Blue Plus. 55,000 member cap (aiming for a target of 50,000 effectuated enrollees, but effectuated enrollment is always lower than the number of people who initially enroll)Health Partners/Group Health (GHI). 73,400 member cap (aiming for a target of 70,000 effectuated enrollees)Medica.

No enrollment capUCare. 35,000 member cap (aiming for a target of 30,000 effectuated enrollees)MNsure confirmed in May 2018 that none of their insurers had hit their enrollment caps for 2018.Outside the exchange, PreferredOne had an enrollment cap of 3,000 members, although their 2017 membership was only about 300 people.2019 and 2020. Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health, UCare, and Medica have continued to offer plans through MNsure, and all of them continued to participate in 2020 as well. Blue Plus expanded to once again offer statewide coverage in 2020, for the first time since 2016.2021.

Quartz joined the exchange for 2021, joining the four existing insurers. HealthPartners and UCare are both expanding their coverage areas for 2021.Minnesota Premium Security Plan. 1332 waiver proposal approved by CMS, but with a significant funding cut for MinnesotaCareIn May 2017, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton submitted a 1332 waiver proposal to CMS. The 1332 waiver was based on H.F.5, which was enacted without Dayton’s signature in April 2017 (Dayton had proposed an alternative measure that would have allowed people in Minnesota to buy into MinnesotaCare.

That measure was not able to pass the state’s Republican-dominated legislature).[For more than two decades, MinnesotaCare was a state program subsidizing health insurance for low-income residents. As of January 1, 2015, it transitioned to a Basic Health Program under the ACA, becoming the first BHP in the nation.]H.F.5 created the Minnesota Premium Security Plan (MPSP), which is a state-based reinsurance program (similar to the one the ACA implemented on a temporary basis through 2016, and that Alaska created for 2017. Several other states have since implemented reinsurance programs). The reinsurance program, which took effect in Minnesota in 2018, covers a portion of the claims that insurers face, resulting in lower total claims costs for the insurers, and thus lower premiums (average individual market premiums in Minnesota decreased from 2017 to 2018 as a result of the reinsurance program).

The reinsurance kicks in once claims reach $50,000, and covers them at 80 percent up to $250,000 (this is similar to the coverage under the transitional reinsurance program that the ACA provided from 2014 through 2016).H.F.5 was contingent upon approval of the 1332 waiver, because it relies partially on federal funding, in addition to state funding. Under the federal approval that was granted in September 2017, the federal government is giving Minnesota the money that they save on premium tax credits, and that money is combined with state funds to implement the reinsurance program (lower premiums — as a result of the reinsurance program — result in the federal government having to pay a smaller total amount of premium tax credits, since the tax credits are smaller when premiums are smaller).It was expected that CMS would approve the state’s 1332 waiver proposal, and Governor Dayton requested that the approval process be swift so that the state could move forward with the implementation of the Minnesota Premium Security Plan in time for the 2018 plan year. Dayton indicated that his office had been told that approval would come in August 2017, but CMS didn’t approve the waiver until September 22. And the waiver approval letter noted that the federal savings for MinnesotaCare (the state’s Basic Health Program, or BHP) resulting from the reinsurance program would not be eligible to be passed along to the state — in other words, CMS would keep those savings instead.[Federal BHP funding is equal to 95 percent of the amount that the federal government would have otherwise spent on premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions for the population that ends up being eligible for the BHP.

So lower premiums — as a result of reinsurance — for qualified health plans in the exchange means that the amount the federal government would have had to spend on premium subsidies for that population is lower. That translates into a smaller amount of funding for the state’s BHP, according to the approach that HHS took for Minnesota’s waiver approval.]And based on the scathing letter that Dayton sent CMS a few days earlier, it appeared at that point that Minnesota could actually lose money on the deal — losing more in federal funding for MinnesotaCare than they gain in reinsurance funding. Dayton noted in his letter that the 1332 waiver approval process had been “nightmarish,” and that Minnesota went to great lengths to follow instructions from CMS at every turn, throughout the process of drafting H.F.5 and the 1332 waiver proposal. He explains that CMS provided Minnesota with explicit guidance in terms of how to draft the reinsurance program while maintaining full federal funding for MinnesotaCare, and highlighted the fact that the state never deviated from the instructions that were provided.The StarTribune editorial board called out then-Secretary of HHS, Tom Price and the Trump Administration for their lack of clarity on the issue, for apparently misleading the state during the 1332 waiver drafting process, and for effectively punishing the state of Minnesota for taking an innovative approach to ensuring that as many people as possible have health insurance.Insurers filed rates based on reinsurance being available.

And by the time the waiver was approved, there was very little time to evaluate the potential impacts of the funding changes, as rates had to be finalized by October 2 in Minnesota. The finalized rates did incorporate the reinsurance program. The state has accepted the approved waiver, but Gov. Dayton sent a letter to HHS on October 3, asking them to reconsider the MinnesotaCare funding cuts, but the issue has remained unresolved.Elimination of CSR funding results in additional funding cut for MinnesotaCare, but a lawsuit has partially restored that fundingNationwide, 54 percent of exchange enrollees benefit from cost-sharing subsidies.

But in Minnesota, only 13 percent of exchange enrollees are receiving cost-sharing subsidies. This is because of MinnesotaCare, which covers all enrollees with income up to 200 percent of the poverty level. That’s the same group that would otherwise benefit the most from cost-sharing subsidies, so the fact that MinnesotaCare is available means that most of the people who would otherwise be enrolled in cost-sharing subsidy plans are instead enrolled in MinnesotaCare.At first glance, this would appear to have made the uncertainty surrounding cost-sharing subsidy funding in 2017 a little less of a pressing issue in Minnesota than it was in many other states, since private insurers weren’t facing the sort of losses that insurers in other states were facing without federal funding for CSR. But when the Trump Administration eliminated federal funding for CSR in October 2017, HHS took the position tha t since CSR funding had been eliminated, the CSR portion of the federal funding for the BHPs in New York and Minnesota would be reduced to $0.

This was not a cut-and-dried conclusion, however, as explained earlier in 2017 by Michael Kalina.In January 2018, the Attorneys General for New York and Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services, seeking to restore funding for their Basic Health Programs. A judge ruled in favor of the states in May 2018, ensuring that MinnesotaCare would continue to receive at least some CSR-based funding. The amount awarded to the state for the first quarter of 2018 was just over half of what the state had initially expected in CSR-related funding, but a larger chuck of the funding was restored later in 2018. According to the Star Tribune, however, Minnesota still ended up losing $161 million in federal funding for MinnesotaCare due to the CSR funding cuts.In early 2019, the Trump administration proposed yet another funding cut (a third, after the cuts imposed by the reinsurance program and the elimination of CSR funding) as part of a new methodology for calculating BHP funding.

This one was much smaller than the other two cuts, but taken together the funding reductions are pushing MinnesotaCare towards a looming budget shortfall. SHOP exchange. Down to one carrier as of 2016, zero by 2018 (and still zero in 2019)In 2015, there were two carriers in MNsure’s SHOP exchange for small businesses. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Medica.

But Medica announced in 2015 that they would exit the SHOP exchange in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin at the end of the year. That left BCBS as the only small group carrier available through MNsure in 2016, but it didn’t change much from a practical standpoint, since 83 percent of MNsure’s small groups were enrolled in plans through BCBS in 2015. Indeed, Medica’s reason for exiting the small business exchange was based on low enrollment in the first two years.Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota continued to be the only insurer offering SHOP coverage via MNsure in 2017, but announced in July 2017 that they would no longer offer SHOP coverage in 2018, and would instead transition their SHOP enrollees to small business coverage outside the exchange. At that point, there were only 3,287 people enrolled in SHOP coverage in Minnesota — far below the 155,000 people that were originally projected to have coverage through MNsure’s SHOP program by 2016 (this much lower-than-anticipated enrollment has been the case in nearly every state’s SHOP exchange.

This situation is not unique to Minnesota). State law provided 25% premium rebate in 2017. Amendment to allow plans without essential benefits was cut from final legislationThroughout 2016, then-Governor Dayton called for a state-funded premium rebate for people who buy their own insurance but aren’t eligible for the ACA’s premium subsidies (those are only available for people with income up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $100,400 for a family of four in 2019).Governor Dayton also noted that the government needed to act quickly to stabilize the individual market in Minnesota, and by late November 2016, his patience with lawmakers was wearing thin. In a November 23 press conference, Dayton said that House Republicans needed to “stop dilly-dallying” and decide whether to move forward with Dayton’s rebate proposal.Dayton had also indicated that he was considering calling a special session of the legislature after election day to address the situation, and that was being negotiated for December 20.

But the talks fell through when Dayton and Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt couldn’t agree on the three bills that would have been addressed in the special session. As a result, there was no special session.Instead, the issue was taken up by lawmakers as soon as the 2017 legislative session began. On January 5, Minnesota Senators Michelle Benson (R, 31st District) and Gary Dahms (R, 16th District) introduced S.F.1. The bill called for using $300 million in state funding to provide a 25 percent rebate to roughly 125,000 people in Minnesota.S.F.1 passed the Minnesota Senate by a 35-31 vote on January 12.

Only one DFL Senator (Melisa Franzen, from Edina) voted with Republicans in favor of the legislation. It was then sent to the House, where an amendment was added that stripped out the requirement that health plans provide various mandated benefits (see “Journal of the Day” section “Top of page 154” in this version of the bill. Under the terms of the amendment, as long as a carrier offered at least one plan with all the mandated benefits, they would have been allowed to offer others without mandated benefits).The amended bill was sent back to the Senate on January 23. Differences between the bills that the two chambers passed had to be reconciled before being sent to Governor Dayton for his signature.

By that point, the amendment to allow less-robust plans to be sold had garnered national attention, and public outrage helped to push lawmakers away from the provision. S.F.1 had also called for $150 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2018 (through June 30, 2019) from the state general fund to a state-based reinsurance program to stabilize the individual market (Alaska did something similar in 2016, preventing a market collapse), but that provision was also removed in the final version (Minnesota did ultimately set up a reinsurance program, effective in 2018, which has served to stabilize the market and reduce premiums).A Conference Committee in the Senate recommended that the House “recede from its amendments” and the Conference Committee report passed the Senate on a 47-19 vote. The House passed the bill a few hours later, 108-19. It was sent to Governor Dayton, who immediately signed it into law.

DFLers did have to compromise on one issue during the process. S.F.1 allows for-profit HMOs to begin operating in Minnesota’s individual market, which had long been limited to non-profit HMOs.Consumers were told to expect the premium rebates to show up by April 2017, but they were retroactively effective to January 2017. So a person who had been paying full price for a plan since January 2017 saw a substantial premium reduction on the April or May invoice. Going forward, for the remainder of the year, a 25 percent rebate applied each month.Since S.F.1 was signed into law with only a few days remaining in open enrollment (it ended January 31 that year), Governor Dayton and exchange officials were worried that there wouldn’t be enough time for people to learn about the rebate and apply for coverage before January 31.

In December, Dayton had asked HHS to allow MNsure to extend its enrollment deadline to February 28 (instead of January 31) in order to allow lawmakers more time to work out the details of a state-based premium rebate while still allowing people to enroll after the legislative process is complete.HHS denied the request for a blanket extension, but MNsure used their own authority on January 28 to grant a one-week special enrollment period (February 1 to February 8) due to exceptional circumstances. Although the state-based 25 percent premium rebate was available on or off the exchange, the one-week extension was only valid through MNsure. Health insurers did not have to accept off-exchange enrollments without a qualifying event after January 31.The 25 percent premium rebate program in Minnesota was only authorized for one year, so the rebates did not continue into 2018. And although almost 100,000 people received premium relief through the program in 2017, it ended up costing less than the legislature had allocated, and about $100 million was returned to the state’s budget at the end of 2017.Protecting Medicaid enrollees from estate liensIn every state, Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and the federal government.

Longstanding federal regulations, which predate the ACA, require states to “seek recovery of payments from the individual’s estate for nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services” for any Medicaid enrollee over the age of 55. This applies essentially to long-term care services, but states also have the option to go after the individual’s estate to recover costs for other care that was provided by Medicaid after age 55.Prior to 2014, this wasn’t typically an issue, as Medicaid eligibility was generally restricted by asset tests or requirements that applicants be disabled or pregnant (although Minnesota did have much more generous Medicaid eligibility guidelines than most states prior to 2014). But as of 2014, in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, the only eligibility guideline is income. Applicants with income that doesn’t exceed 138 percent of the poverty level are directed to Medicaid, regardless of any assets they might have.When applicants use the health insurance exchange — MNsure in Minnesota — they’re automatically funneled into Medical Assistance (Medicaid) if their income is under 138 percent of the poverty level.

But what these enrollees didn’t know was that the state also had a program in place to put liens on estates for Medicaid-provided services for people age 55 and older.The combination of these systems caught numerous residents off guard. They were enrolled in Medical Assistance through MNsure based on their income, but were not aware that liens were being placed on their homes so that the state could recoup the costs upon their deaths.State Senator Tony Lourey (DFL, District 11) addressed the issue with language included in HF2749, the Omnibus supplemental budget bill, which was signed into law by Governor Dayton on June 1, 2016. The legislation limits estate recovery to just what’s required under federal Medicaid rules (ie, essentially, long-term care costs for people age 55 or older), and makes the provision retroactive to January 1, 2014.Early tech strugglesMNsure opened for business in the fall of 2013, but technological issues persisted well into 2015, despite numerous improvements throughout 2014. Given MNsure’s difficult launch, the state conducted a series of audits and reviews.

The first audit reviewed how MNsure spent state and federal money. Auditors concluded that the exchange has generally adequate internal controls and found no fraud or abuse. The review was conducted by the state Office of the Legislative Auditor, and the report was published in October 2014.Another audit, also conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor and released in November 2014, found that the MNsure system in some cases incorrectly determined who qualified for public health benefits. The errors occurred during the first open enrollment period, before a series of system fixes were implemented.

The audit did not quantify the total financial impact of the errors. The state Human Services commissioner said a consultant working on technical fixes to MNsure concluded that the eligibility functionality was working correctly as of June 2014.A third audit, a performance evaluation report released in February 2015, said “MNsure’s failures outweighed its achievements.” Among other criticisms, auditors said MNsure staff withheld information from the board of directors and state officials, the enrollment website was seriously flawed and launched without adequate testing, and the first-year enrollment target was unrealistically low.In April 2014, MNsure hired Deloitte Consulting to audit MNsure’s technology and improve the website to make enrolling in coverage and updating life events easier and more streamlined. Deloitte has been involved in successful state-run marketplaces for Connecticut, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Washington.Software upgrades were installed in August 2014, and system testing continued right up until the start of open enrollment. To reduce wait times for consumers and insurance professionals, MNsure increased its call center and support staff and launched a dedicated service line for agents and brokers.More in-person assisters were available in Minnesota for the 2015 open enrollment period.

MNsure encourages residents to utilize the exchange’s assister directory to find local navigators and brokers who can help with the enrollment process.MNsure has improved dramatically in terms of its technology since the early days of ACA implementation, and enrollment increased every year from 2014 through 2019.Lawmakers approved switching to HealthCare.gov as of 2019, but governor vetoedOn May 9, 2017, lawmakers in Minnesota passed SF800, an omnibus health and human services bill. Among many other things, the legislation called for switching from MNsure to the federally-run marketplace (HealthCare.gov) starting in 2019 (see Section 5). But Governor Dayton vetoed it.Gov. Dayton has long been supportive of MNsure, and had previously clarified that he would veto the bill.

In noting his plans to veto the legislation, Dayton made no mention of the transition to HealthCare.gov that was included in the legislation, but focused instead on the sharp budget cuts in the bill. But his veto ensured that MNsure would remain in place, at least for the time being.The Senate’s original version of SF800 did not call for scrapping MNsure, but the bill went through considerable back-and-forth between the two chambers, and the version that passed was the 4th engrossment of the bill.In March 2015, Dayton had asked the legislature to create a Task Force on Health Care Financing that would study MNsure along with possible future alternatives. Dayton noted in his letter that he supported making MNsure “directly accountable to the governor and subject to the same legislative oversight as other state agencies” and his budget included half a million dollars devoted to the task force. The spending bill was approved by the legislature in May, and the 29-member task force was appointed in the summer.One of the possibilities that the task force considered was the possibility of switching to Healthcare.gov, but it’s clear that there was no cut-and-dried answer to the question of whether Minnesota is better served by having a state-run exchange, switching to a federally-run exchange, or teaming up with the federal government on either a supported state-based marketplace or partnership exchange.In a December 2015 meeting of the task force, the MN Department of Human Services presented a financial analysis of the alternatives available to MNsure.

They determined that switching entirely to Healthcare.gov would cost the state an additional $5.1 million in one-time costs from June 2016 to June 2017. And switching to a supported state-based marketplace would cost an additional $6.6 million during that same time frame. If the state had opted to switch to Healthcare.gov, the soonest it could have happened was 2018, since HHS requires a year’s notice from states wishing to transition to Healthcare.gov, and Minnesota wouldn’t have been in a position to make a decision until sometime in 2016.There were significant reservations about making that switch prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell.

The Court ruled in June 2015 that subsidies are legal in every state, including those that use Healthcare.gov. Prior to the decision, a switch to Healthcare.gov could have jeopardized subsidies for tens of thousands of Minnesota residents. But once it was clear that Healthcare.gov’s subsidies are safe, some stakeholders began calling for Minnesota to scrap its state-run exchange and use Healthcare.gov instead. Because the MNsure task force was included in the 2016 budget, no hasty decisions were made.In January 2016, the task force submitted their recommendations to the legislature.

They covered a broad range of issues, but did not recommend that MNsure transition to the federal enrollment platform. Lawmakers essentially left the exchange alone during the 2016 legislative session.The magnitude of the 2016 rate increases that were announced in October resulted in MNsure opponents renewing their calls to switch to Healthcare.gov. But it’s important to keep in mind that the 41 percent weighted average rate hike in Minnesota was market-wide, and did not just apply to MNsure enrollees. In fact, the off-exchange carrier (PreferredOne) had among the highest rate hikes in the state for 2016, at 39 percent, and the exchange’s weighted average rate increase (38.5 percent) was lower than the weighted average rate increase for the whole individual market (41 percent).Minnesota health insurance exchange linksMNsure855-3MNSURE (855-366-7873)State Exchange Profile.

MinnesotaThe Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation overview of Minnesota’s progress toward creating a state health insurance exchange.Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts.Key takeaways Medicaid expansion in HawaiiHawaii adopted Medicaid expansion through the Affordable Care Act, extending eligibility for Medicaid to adults with income up to 133 percent of the poverty level (138 percent with the automatic 5 percent income disregard).

Medicaid expansion took effect in January 2014.According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 70,000 Hawaii residents were uninsured in 2015. With Medicaid expansion now covering low-income, nonelderly adults, 50 percent of Hawaii’s remaining uninsured population at that point was eligible for Medicaid – although they may not realize that they’re eligible. According to U.S. Census data, only 3.5 percent of Hawaii residents were uninsured as of 2016, down from 6.7 percent in 2013.

Although the state’s uninsured rate was reduced by nearly half from 2013 to 2016, it was already less than half of the national average uninsured rate even in 2013, before the bulk of the ACA’s provisions had taken effect. Hawaii’s Prepaid Health Care Act, which has been in place since the 1970s, had already resulted in nearly all of the state’s population having insurance coverage, even before the ACA took effect. However, with the erectile dysfunction outbreak, job losses and the subsequent loss of employer-provided insurance have contributed to a jump in the uninsured rate across the U.S. As of May 2020, Hawaii’s uninsured rate was 10 percent.Medicaid expansion helped cement top-ranking health scores Federalpoverty levelcalculator 0.0% of Federal Poverty Level Hawaii has a long history of supporting initiatives to make health insurance broadly available to residents.

Hawaii was among the first six states that implemented a Medicaid program in January 1966, just six months after federal legislation authorizing the program was enacted. In 1974, Hawaii implemented its Prepaid Health Care Act, which mandated that most employers make health insurance available to employees who work at least 20 hours a week.In conjunction with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Hawaii initially implemented a state-run health insurance marketplace and adopted Medicaid expansion. The marketplace transitioned to a federally-supported state-run marketplace for 2016, and transitioned again to a fully federally-run exchange for 2017, largely in an effort to take advantage of the economies of scale that the federally-run exchange could bring to a state with low overall enrollment in the individual market (because of Hawaii’s Prepaid Health Care Act, nearly all non-elderly Hawaii residents get coverage from an employer, and relatively few need coverage under individual market plans). Nothing changed about Medicaid with the switch to Healthcare.gov though.

The expanded Medicaid eligibility guidelines are still in effect in Hawaii.Through its efforts, Hawaii consistently has low uninsured rates and high overall health scores. As of 2015, Hawaii was ranked the healthiest state in the nation according to the Gallup Healthways Physical Wellbeing Index, and the state consistently scores near the top in other ranking systems (number 2 the America’s Health Rankings 2017 survey, and number 3 in the Commonwealth Fund’s 2017 Scorecard on State Health System Performance).Who is eligible for Medicaid in Hawaii?. Hawaii’s Medicaid eligibility levels for children are much higher than the national average and about average for pregnant women and parents.Children ages 0-18 qualify with family income levels up to 308 of the federal poverty level (FPL)Pregnant women qualify with family income up to 191 percent of FPLParents and other adults qualify with family income up to 138 percent of FPLHawaii also uses Medicaid funds to help cover premium costs for Hawaii residents who aren’t U.S. Citizens but who are citizens of nations that have entered into the Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the U.S.How do I enroll in Medicaid in Hawaii?.

Hawaii’s Medicaid program is called MED-QUEST (MQD). QUEST stands for Quality care, Universal access, Efficient utilization, Stabilizing costs, and Transforming the way health care is provided to recipients.You can apply for MED-QUEST. Hawaii Medicaid enrollment numbersMore than 351,000 people were enrolled in Hawaii’s Medicaid and CHIP programs as of June 2020. This figure is a 22% increase over 2013 (pre-ACA) enrollment, when about 288,000 people were enrolled.

Accordingly to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 107,300 of those enrolled in Hawaii Medicaid are part of the ACA-authorized expansion as of June 2019.Hawaii Medicaid historyHawaii implemented its Medicaid program in January 1966.In the early 1990s, Hawaii implemented the State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to cover people who weren’t eligible for Medicaid. Then, in 1994, CMS approved Hawaii’s section 1115 Medicaid waiver (one of the first in the nation) to wrap SHIP in with Medicaid in an effort to achieve universal insurance coverage (in combination with the state’s Prepaid Health Care Act). The result of the waiver was the creation of Hawaii’s MED-QUEST program, which initially covered low-income women and children, but has since expanded (as of 2009) to cover nearly all of Hawaii’s Medicaid beneficiaries. The MED-QUEST waiver is subject to renewal every five years.Medicaid in Hawaii is separated into two different methods of providing services.

The fee-for-service (FFS) program and the managed care program, called MED-QUEST or MQD. Under the FFS program, doctors and other healthcare providers bill Medicaid directly to be reimbursed for services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. Under MED-QUEST, the state contracts with managed care plans who in turn provide healthcare services to Medicaid beneficiaries.As of 2011, more than 98 percent of the people enrolled in Hawaii’s Medicaid program were covered through managed care. By March 2015, Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 335,007 Medicaid enrollees in Hawaii were covered under managed care programs.

That’s higher than the August 2015 total Medicaid/CHIP enrollment count, but KFF notes that the managed care number includes people who are covered under Hawaii’s fully-state-funded Medicaid program, in addition to the majority of enrollees who are in regular Medicaid that’s funded partially by the state and partially by the federal government.In August 2017, Hawaii submitted a waiver amendment to CMS in order to gain federal approval to use Medicaid funding to provide housing services to qualified Medicaid enrollees who are homeless and also have behavioral health and/or substance abuse problems. That waiver request was still pending as of February 2018.Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts..

Minnesota marketplace highlights and updatesOpen enrollment generic cialis 10mg online for 2021 http://kollman.com/amoxil-online-canada/ health plans. November 1, 2020 through generic cialis 10mg online December 22, 2020. Residents with qualifying events can still enroll or make changes to their 2020 coverage.Insurers implementing modest rate increases for 2021, after three straight years of average rate decreases. Quartz has joined the exchange for 2021, bringing total number of insurers to five.117,520 people enrolled for 2020, a new record for MNsure.Insurer participation in generic cialis 10mg online MNsure. 2014 to 2021.Reinsurance program received federal approval, began operation in 2018.With reinsurance, rates decreased for 2018 and again, even more significantly, for 2019.

But reinsurance also reduced funding for MinnesotaCare.The elimination of CSR funding further reduced MinnesotaCare funding, but this has been partly restored by a court ruling.MN provided premium relief for non-subsidy-eligible enrollees for 2017 only.Governor generic cialis 10mg online vetoed a proposed 2019 switch to HealthCare.gov.MNsure’s small business exchange no longer has any participating insurers.Minnesota health exchange overviewMinnesota’s one of the states fighting the hardest to preserve the Affordable Care Act’s gains. See actions Minnesota has taken.Minnesota’s state-run exchange, MNsure, has five participating insurers for 2021, up from four in 2020. The exchange has generic cialis 10mg online more than 117,000 individual market enrollees as of 2020.As a result of the erectile dysfunction treatment cialis, MNsure joined most of the other state-run exchanges in offering a special enrollment period during which people who were uninsured could enroll in a health plan. MNsure’s special enrollment period began March 23, and continued through April 21. Nearly 9,500 Minnesota residents enrolled in private plans through MNsure during this window, as well as another 13,700 generic cialis 10mg online who enrolled in MinnesotaCare or Medicaid (enrollment in those programs is open year-round for eligible residents).Allison O’Toole, who led MNsure as CEO for three years, announced her resignation in March 2018, and the exchange named Nate Clark, the MNsure COO, as acting CEO.

A few months later, the MNsure board named Clark as the permanent CEO. O’Toole left MNsure to generic cialis 10mg online work as director of state affairs for United States of Care, a non-profit created by Andy Slavitt, who was the acting administrator of CMS under the Obama Administration.Throughout 2017, Minnesotans who bought their own health insurance (on or off-exchange) and weren’t eligible for ACA subsidies were provided with 25 percent premium rebates from the state as a result of S.F.1, signed into law by Governor Dayton in early 2017. The subsidies helped to offset the large premium increases that applied in Minnesota in 2017, and helped to stabilize the individual health insurance market in 2017. But the premium rebate program expired at the end of 2017.Thanks in large part to the new reinsurance program that Minnesota created (details below), premiums decreased in Minnesota’s individual market in 2018, 2019, and again in 2020, although rates are increasing modestly generic cialis 10mg online for 2021. In May 2019, Minnesota leaders reached an agreement on a budget that included an extension of the reinsurance program through 2020 and 2021 (it has already been granted federal approval through the end of 2022, but the state has to continue to cover its share of the cost.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz had hoped generic cialis 10mg online to implement a premium subsidy program and a new tax credit in Minnesota starting in 2020. But a compromise in the budget ended up with the state opting to continue the existing reinsurance program for two more years instead.).But the waiver that provides federal pass-through funding for reinsurance also resulted in a sharp and unexpected decrease in federal funding for MinnesotaCare, the Basic Health Program that provides coverage for people with income between 138 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level (between $16,642 and $24,120 for a single person).In addition, the elimination of federal funding for cost-sharing reductions (CSR) in October 2018 resulted in a funding cut for MinnesotaCare, since the program is funded in large part by federal funds that would otherwise have been used to pay for premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions in the exchange for the population that is instead eligible for MinnesotaCare. After an ensuing legal battle, a judge ordered HHS to restore funding for MinnesotaCare, although a resolution of the situation is ongoing, and the amount that generic cialis 10mg online HHS agreed to pay was still less than MinnesotaCare would have received if CSR funding had continued.Open enrollment for 2021 health plans extended through December 22, 2020. Insurers implementing modest rate increases for 2021, after three years of overall rate decreasesMNsure enabled window shopping for 2021 health plans as of October 12, 2020. This gives residents a few weeks to browse the available plans generic cialis 10mg online before open enrollment starts on November 1, 2020.

And MNsure has announced that open enrollment will continue through December 22, 2020. That’s a week longer than the open generic cialis 10mg online enrollment period that will apply in states that use the federally-run exchange. The flexibility to extend open enrollment is often cited as one of the benefits of having a fully state-run exchange. (MNsure had a similar extension last December, for generic cialis 10mg online 2020 health plans).For 2021, Quartz is joining the Minnesota marketplace. Quartz currently offers plans in Illinois and Wisconsin, and is expanding into Minnesota for 2021.

And two generic cialis 10mg online of the existing insurers — HealthPartners and UCare — are expanding their coverage areas for 2021 (BluePlus and Medica offer coverage statewide, and will continue to do so in 2021).The following average rate changes have been approved for MNsure’s insurers:Blue Plus. 4.21 percent increase (down from an initially proposed 7.12 percent increase)Group generic cialis 10mg online Health/Health Partners (GHI). 0.67 percent increase (down from an initially proposed 4.15 percent increase)Medica. 2.42 percent increase (down from an initially proposed generic cialis 10mg online 7.06 percent increase)UCare. 1.6 percent increase (up from an initially proposed 1.39 percent decrease)Quartz.

New for 2021, so no applicable rate changePreferredOne Insurance Company, which generic cialis 10mg online offers plans outside the exchange, is increasing premiums by 1.05 percent (down from an initially proposed average increase of 5.09 percent). Rate changes in previous years2015. Average increase generic cialis 10mg online of 4.5 percent. MNsure critics characterized the official announcement as misleading as it failed to take into account low-cost 2014 plans from PreferredOne. Consumers who bought a PreferredOne plan through MNsure for 2014 could only renew their generic cialis 10mg online policies for 2015 by working directly with the insurer, since PreferredOne stopped offering plans in the exchange at the end of 2014.

However, PreferredOne rates went up an average of 63 percent, and consumers didn’t qualify for subsidies if they shopped outside the exchange. 2016. Average increase of 41.4 percent for the individual market, and about 38.5 for plans sold in MNsure (ie, not counting PreferredOne). Rates increased significantly in 2016 across the entire individual market in Minnesota — including plans sold through MNsure, the state-run exchange.Approved rates for 2016 were announced on October 1, 2015, ranging from about 15 percent for Medica to 49 percent for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota. In general, the carriers cited higher-than-expected claims costs over the past year, along with the impending phase-out of the ACA’s reinsurance program as justification for their 2016 rate requests.

But Governor Mark Dayton called some of the higher proposed increases “outrageous,” and promised a rigorous review of the filed rate changes and justifications. Ultimately, regulators were able to limit the highest rate increases to 49 percent — as opposed to the 54 percent that had been requested by Blue Plus and BCBS of MN — but the final weighted average rate increase in the individual market in Minnesota still ended up being the highest in the nation. But Minnesota still had the lowest overall premiums in the upper midwest (although Minnesota had the highest average rate increase in the country for 2016, they had the lowest overall rates in the country in 2014 and 2015).Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman called the rate increases “unacceptably high,” and Gov. Dayton noted that he was “extremely unhappy” with the rate changes. But Rothman noted that his office “objected to all of the rates across the board,” and “squeezed out everything we could that was not actuarial justified.” In other words, the final rates, although much higher than officials and policyholders would have liked, were justified based on medical claims costs — the population enrolled in individual health plans in Minnesota was sicker than expected, and drug costs had been particularly onerous.Only about 55 percent of people who had 2015 coverage through MNsure received premium subsidies.

But due to the sharp premium increases, that had increased to about 63 percent for the people who had purchased or renewed coverage as of June 2016.2017. When the Minnesota Department of Commerce announced health insurance rates for 2017 for the individual and small group markets, the rate hikes were somewhat reasonable in the small group market (ranging from a decrease of 1 percent to an increase of 17.8 percent), but the individual market was “experiencing serious disruptions in 2017” and “on the verge of collapse.” The four carriers that offered plans through MNsure had the following average rate increases in 2017:Blue Plus = 55 percentHealthPartners/Group Health (GHI) = 50 percent (HealthPartners is only offering plans in 10 of the 67 counties where they offered plans in 2016. Their enrollment cap is 72,000 for 2017)Medica = 57.5 percent (enrollment cap is 50,000 for 2017)UCare = 66.8 percent (UCare capped enrollment at 30,000 for 2017, but only had 16,000 enrollees in 2016)The enrollment caps that HealthPartners, Medica, and UCare employed for 2017 were approved as part of the rate review process, and are designed to protect carriers from further financial losses as they absorb BCBSMN’s enrollees who are shopping for new coverage during open enrollment.In a news release relating to the rate announcement for 2017, the Minnesota Department of Commerce didn’t mince words. They noted that the individual market in the state was on the brink of collapse, and that they did everything in their power to save the market. While they succeeded in keeping the state’s individual market viable for 2017, with only one carrier exiting (BCBSMN, although their HMO affiliate, Blue Plus, remained in the exchange), they reiterated very clearly that substantial reforms would be needed to keep the market stable in future years, and highlighted the fact that rates would be sharply higher and that carriers would limit enrollment in 2017.2018.

Final rates for 2018 were approved in October 2017 (comprehensive information about the approved rates is here), based on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan (MSPS) being implemented but cost-sharing reductions (CSR) not being funded by the federal government (the cost of CSRs was added to on-exchange Silver plans). Average approved rate changes for MNsure insurers ranged from a 13.3 percent decrease for UCare to a 2.8 percent increase for Blue Plus. Three of the four MNsure insurers decreased their average premiums for 2018.On September 21, MNsure had posted a notice indicating that if the reinsurance program were not approved, rates would be about 20 percent higher than they would otherwise be in 2018. Fortunately for Minnesota residents, the reinsurance program did receive federal approval, and average rates declined slightly for 2018.But some enrollees who don’t get ACA premium subsidies still experienced a rate increase, due to the termination of the one-year, state-funded 25 percent premium rebates at the end of 2017.PreferredOne, which exited MNsure at the end of 2014 and only offers coverage in the off-exchange market, proposed dramatically lower rates for 2018. A 38 percent average decrease if MSPS were to be approved, and a 23 percent average decrease if not.

The 38 percent decrease was implemented, and no adjustments were necessary to account for CSR funding, since PreferredOne does not offer plans in the exchange, and CSRs are only available on silver exchange plans.2019. Average premium decrease of 12.4 percent. Average premiums dropped for all five insurers in the individual market in 2019. This was the second year in a row of declining rates in Minnesota, but Blue Plus had a small rate increase for 2018, so 2019 was the first year that all five insurers decreased their average rates. Minnesota insurance regulators noted that rates in 2019 were about 20 percent lower than they would have been without the reinsurance program.But most of Minnesota’s insurers charged higher rates in 2019 than they would have if the individual mandate penalty hadn’t been eliminated, and if access to short-term plans and association health plans hadn’t been expanded by the Trump administration.

For example, UCare’s rate filing notes that while average rates were decreasing by about 10 percent, the rate decrease would have been nearly 15 percent if the individual mandate penalty had remained in place.At ACA Signups, Charles Gaba calculated a weighted average rate decrease of 12.4 percent for 2019 in Minnesota, but noted that the average decrease would have been nearly 19 percent without those changes at the federal level.2020. Average premium decrease of 1 percent. Four of the five insurers (including PreferredOne, which only offers coverage off-exchange) in Minnesota’s individual market decreased their average premiums for 2020. This was the third year in a row that average individual market premiums dropped in Minnesota’s individual market, due in large part to the reinsurance program that the state has established.The following average rate changes were implemented for 2020:Blue Plus. 1.5 percent decrease (Blue Plus had originally proposed a 4.8 percent increase)Group Health/Health Partners (GHI).

1.26 percent decrease (GHI had originally proposed a 2.1 percent increase)Medica. 1.01 percent decrease (Medica had originally proposed an average decrease of 1.4 percent)UCare. 0.18 percent increase (UCare originally proposed a 0.3 percent increase)PreferredOne, which only offers off-exchange coverage, reduced their rates by an average of 20 percent, on the heels of an 11 percent decrease in 2019. MNsure enrollment exceeded 116k in 2018, dropped to 113k for 2019, but grew to more than 1117k in 2020From 2014 through 2018, enrollment in MNsure’s individual market plans increased every year, reaching 116,358 people by 2018. That was the highest open enrollment total in MNsure’s history, despite the shorter enrollment period, which ended in mid-January instead of the end of January (open enrollment for 2018 coverage ended on December 15, 2017 in states that use HealthCare.gov, but MNsure opted to extend their enrollment window that year, and have also extended subsequent enrollment windows).Enrollment dropped for the first time in 2019, when 113,552 people enrolled in individual market plans through MNsure.

In most states that use HealthCare.gov, enrollment peaked in 2016 and has been dropping since then. But MNsure’s drop-off in 2019, which amounted to only a 2.4 percent reduction in enrollment, is the only time year-over-year enrollment has declined. Notably, the ACA’s individual mandate penalty was eliminated as of 2019, and regulations that the Trump administration implemented in late 2018 now make it more feasible for healthy people to use short-term plans instead of ACA-compliant plans (Minnesota has its own rules for short-term plans, but they’re more relaxed than the Obama-era federal rules that applied in 2017 and most of 2018).And for 2020, enrollment grew again, reaching a record high of 117,520 enrollees.Here’s a look at the number of people who have signed up for individual market plans through MNsure during each year’s open enrollment period. These numbers all represent total enrollment at the end of open enrollment. Effectuated enrollment is always lower, and MNsure provides periodic effectuated enrollment data on their board meeting materials page.

Insurer participation in MNsure. 2014-20212014. Five insurers offered individual policies through MNsure for 2014. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, HealthPartners/Group Health, Medica, PreferredOne, and UCare. Kaiser Health News reported that Minnesota offered some of the lowest premiums for silver (mid-level) plans in the U.S.

Four of Minnesota’s nine regions made Kaiser’s list of the 10 least expensive places to buy health insurance.2015. But PreferredOne, which offered the lowest rates in the nation in 2014 and captured a large portion of 2014 enrollees, withdrew from MNsure for 2015. PreferredOne said remaining on the exchange was “not administratively and financially sustainable.” A Star Tribune business writer attributed PreferredOne’s departure as a market dynamics issue rather than a problem with MNsure.However, Blue Plus (an affiliate of Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN, offering HMO plans) joined the exchange for 2015, so there were still five insurers offering plans for 2015. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health, Medica, and UCare. MNsure offered 84 plans statewide, up from 78 for 2014.2016.

BCBSMN, Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health, Medica, and UCare offered individual market plans through MNsure for 2016.2017. In an effort to recruit more carriers to offer plans through MNsure for 2017 — particularly outside the Twin Cities metro area — state regulators sent out a request for proposals from health insurers on August 15, 2016. Regulators noted that insurers could propose waivers of regulations in order to make it feasible for them to offer coverage through MNsure, although any such waiver requests would have to be approved by regulators.Steven Parente, a health insurance expert at the University of Minnesota, called the state’s effort to recruit insurers to MNsure a “distress call” and noted that August 15 is awfully late in the year to be putting out a request for insurer participation, given that open enrollment begins November 1. And ultimately, no new insurers opted to join MNsure for 2017.Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN dropped their individual market PPO plans at the end of 2016 due to significant financial losses. That left Blue Plus (which offered HMOs and covered roughly 13,000 people in 2016 in the individual market) as the only BCBSMN affiliate in the exchange.

Roughly 103,000 people had to select new plans during open enrollment.Most of those BCBSMN enrollees had off-exchange coverage, though. There were only about 20,400 MNsure enrollees (a little more than one in five MNsure enrollees) with coverage under BCBSMN who needed to switch to another plan during open enrollment. BCBSMN had individual PPO options available in all 87 counties in Minnesota through MNsure in 2016, while the Blue Plus coverage area — comprised of four separate HMO networks — was available in 77 of the state’s counties.Nationwide, carriers have been shifting away from PPOs and towards HMOs and EPOs. In Colorado, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield also dropped their PPOs at the end of 2016. In Indiana, there were no PPOs available in the individual market by 2017.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico dropped all of their individual market plans at the end of 2015 except one off-exchange HMO. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas dropped their individual market PPO plans at the end of 2015.The broad network offered by PPOs tends to be attractive to enrollees who have health problems. They’re often willing to pay higher premiums in trade for access to broad network of hospitals and specialists. But PPOs are expensive for carriers, as enrollees don’t need primary care referrals to see specialists, and it’s more challenging for carriers to hold down costs when there are more providers in the network.All of the MNsure carriers except Blue Plus are also limiting their total enrollment for 2017. By November 11, 2016, less than two weeks into open enrollment for 2017 coverage, Medica had hit their 50,000 member enrollment cap for 2017 (including on and off-exchange enrollments, and also accounting for expected renewals of 2016 Medica plans), and their policies were no longer available in the individual market in Minnesota, on or off-exchange.

The only exception was five counties (Benton, Crow Wing, Mille Lacs, Morrison, and Stearns) where Medica agreed not to limit enrollment, as all of the other available carriers in those counties have imposed enrollment caps too. In those five counties, Medica plans continued to be available.At that point, Medica’s market share in MNsure for 2017 stood at 34.2 percent. By December 14, Medica’s market share had dropped to 27.7 percent, as enrollments had continued to climb for the remaining carriers.On January 31, Medica re-opened enrollment for 2017. This was because a smaller-than-expected number of 2016 Medica enrollees renewed their plans for 2017, meaning that the carrier still had some wiggle room under their 50,000 member cap. At that point, they had room for about 7,000 more enrollees.

Medica plans were thus available throughout the duration of the special enrollment period that was added on at the end of open enrollment, and continue to be available for people with qualifying events.2018. Plans continued to be available from Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health (GHI), Medica, UCare. In the months before a decision was reached regarding an extension of the open enrollment window for 2018 plans (the first year that the federal government imposed a shorter, month-and-a-half enrollment window), two of MNsure’s participating insurers had differing positions. UCare believed the exchange should add an additional two-week special enrollment period, while Medica did not want the exchange to have the option to extend the newly-scheduled six-week enrollment window. Notably, Medica capped their enrollment very early during the 2017 open enrollment period, and while UCare also had an enrollment cap, it was set with a target of nearly doubling their 2016 enrollment.

But Medica is the only MNsure insurer that didn’t set an enrollment cap for 2018.As was the case for 2017, enrollment caps were used in the individual market in Minnesota for 2018 by all insurers other than Medica (Medica did have an enrollment cap for 2017, which they hit very early in open enrollment. However, they resumed enrollments at the end of January 2017). Details about the insurers’ enrollment caps are in the plan binders in SERFF. For 2018, MNsure insurers implemented the following enrollment caps:Blue Plus. 55,000 member cap (aiming for a target of 50,000 effectuated enrollees, but effectuated enrollment is always lower than the number of people who initially enroll)Health Partners/Group Health (GHI).

73,400 member cap (aiming for a target of 70,000 effectuated enrollees)Medica. No enrollment capUCare. 35,000 member cap (aiming for a target of 30,000 effectuated enrollees)MNsure confirmed in May 2018 that none of their insurers had hit their enrollment caps for 2018.Outside the exchange, PreferredOne had an enrollment cap of 3,000 members, although their 2017 membership was only about 300 people.2019 and 2020. Blue Plus, Health Partners/Group Health, UCare, and Medica have continued to offer plans through MNsure, and all of them continued to participate in 2020 as well. Blue Plus expanded to once again offer statewide coverage in 2020, for the first time since 2016.2021.

Quartz joined the exchange for 2021, joining the four existing insurers. HealthPartners and UCare are both expanding their coverage areas for 2021.Minnesota Premium Security Plan. 1332 waiver proposal approved by CMS, but with a significant funding cut for MinnesotaCareIn May 2017, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton submitted a 1332 waiver proposal to CMS. The 1332 waiver was based on H.F.5, which was enacted without Dayton’s signature in April 2017 (Dayton had proposed an alternative measure that would have allowed people in Minnesota to buy into MinnesotaCare. That measure was not able to pass the state’s Republican-dominated legislature).[For more than two decades, MinnesotaCare was a state program subsidizing health insurance for low-income residents.

As of January 1, 2015, it transitioned to a Basic Health Program under the ACA, becoming the first BHP in the nation.]H.F.5 created the Minnesota Premium Security Plan (MPSP), which is a state-based reinsurance program (similar to the one the ACA implemented on a temporary basis through 2016, and that Alaska created for 2017. Several other states have since implemented reinsurance programs). The reinsurance program, which took effect in Minnesota in 2018, covers a portion of the claims that insurers face, resulting in lower total claims costs for the insurers, and thus lower premiums (average individual market premiums in Minnesota decreased from 2017 to 2018 as a result of the reinsurance program). The reinsurance kicks in once claims reach $50,000, and covers them at 80 percent up to $250,000 (this is similar to the coverage under the transitional reinsurance program that the ACA provided from 2014 through 2016).H.F.5 was contingent upon approval of the 1332 waiver, because it relies partially on federal funding, in addition to state funding. Under the federal approval that was granted in September 2017, the federal government is giving Minnesota the money that they save on premium tax credits, and that money is combined with state funds to implement the reinsurance program (lower premiums — as a result of the reinsurance program — result in the federal government having to pay a smaller total amount of premium tax credits, since the tax credits are smaller when premiums are smaller).It was expected that CMS would approve the state’s 1332 waiver proposal, and Governor Dayton requested that the approval process be swift so that the state could move forward with the implementation of the Minnesota Premium Security Plan in time for the 2018 plan year.

Dayton indicated that his office had been told that approval would come in August 2017, but CMS didn’t approve the waiver until September 22. And the waiver approval letter noted that the federal savings for MinnesotaCare (the state’s Basic Health Program, or BHP) resulting from the reinsurance program would not be eligible to be passed along to the state — in other words, CMS would keep those savings instead.[Federal BHP funding is equal to 95 percent of the amount that the federal government would have otherwise spent on premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions for the population that ends up being eligible for the BHP. So lower premiums — as a result of reinsurance — for qualified health plans in the exchange means that the amount the federal government would have had to spend on premium subsidies for that population is lower. That translates into a smaller amount of funding for the state’s BHP, according to the approach that HHS took for Minnesota’s waiver approval.]And based on the scathing letter that Dayton sent CMS a few days earlier, it appeared at that point that Minnesota could actually lose money on the deal — losing more in federal funding for MinnesotaCare than they gain in reinsurance funding. Dayton noted in his letter that the 1332 waiver approval process had been “nightmarish,” and that Minnesota went to great lengths to follow instructions from CMS at every turn, throughout the process of drafting H.F.5 and the 1332 waiver proposal.

He explains that CMS provided Minnesota with explicit guidance in terms of how to draft the reinsurance program while maintaining full federal funding for MinnesotaCare, and highlighted the fact that the state never deviated from the instructions that were provided.The StarTribune editorial board called out then-Secretary of HHS, Tom Price and the Trump Administration for their lack of clarity on the issue, for apparently misleading the state during the 1332 waiver drafting process, and for effectively punishing the state of Minnesota for taking an innovative approach to ensuring that as many people as possible have health insurance.Insurers filed rates based on reinsurance being available. And by the time the waiver was approved, there was very little time to evaluate the potential impacts of the funding changes, as rates had to be finalized by October 2 in Minnesota. The finalized rates did incorporate the reinsurance program. The state has accepted the approved waiver, but Gov. Dayton sent a letter to HHS on October 3, asking them to reconsider the MinnesotaCare funding cuts, but the issue has remained unresolved.Elimination of CSR funding results in additional funding cut for MinnesotaCare, but a lawsuit has partially restored that fundingNationwide, 54 percent of exchange enrollees benefit from cost-sharing subsidies.

But in Minnesota, only 13 percent of exchange enrollees are receiving cost-sharing subsidies. This is because of MinnesotaCare, which covers all enrollees with income up to 200 percent of the poverty level. That’s the same group that would otherwise benefit the most from cost-sharing subsidies, so the fact that MinnesotaCare is available means that most of the people who would otherwise be enrolled in cost-sharing subsidy plans are instead enrolled in MinnesotaCare.At first glance, this would appear to have made the uncertainty surrounding cost-sharing subsidy funding in 2017 a little less of a pressing issue in Minnesota than it was in many other states, since private insurers weren’t facing the sort of losses that insurers in other states were facing without federal funding for CSR. But when the Trump Administration eliminated federal funding for CSR in October 2017, HHS took the position tha t since CSR funding had been eliminated, the CSR portion of the federal funding for the BHPs in New York and Minnesota would be reduced to $0. This was not a cut-and-dried conclusion, however, as explained earlier in 2017 by Michael Kalina.In January 2018, the Attorneys General for New York and Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services, seeking to restore funding for their Basic Health Programs.

A judge ruled in favor of the states in May 2018, ensuring that MinnesotaCare would continue to receive at least some CSR-based funding. The amount awarded to the state for the first quarter of 2018 was just over half of what the state had initially expected in CSR-related funding, but a larger chuck of the funding was restored later in 2018. According to the Star Tribune, however, Minnesota still ended up losing $161 million in federal funding for MinnesotaCare due to the CSR funding cuts.In early 2019, the Trump administration proposed yet another funding cut (a third, after the cuts imposed by the reinsurance program and the elimination of CSR funding) as part of a new methodology for calculating BHP funding. This one was much smaller than the other two cuts, but taken together the funding reductions are pushing MinnesotaCare towards a looming budget shortfall. SHOP exchange.

Down to one carrier as of 2016, zero by 2018 (and still zero in 2019)In 2015, there were two carriers in MNsure’s SHOP exchange for small businesses. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Medica. But Medica announced in 2015 that they would exit the SHOP exchange in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin at the end of the year. That left BCBS as the only small group carrier available through MNsure in 2016, but it didn’t change much from a practical standpoint, since 83 percent of MNsure’s small groups were enrolled in plans through BCBS in 2015. Indeed, Medica’s reason for exiting the small business exchange was based on low enrollment in the first two years.Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota continued to be the only insurer offering SHOP coverage via MNsure in 2017, but announced in July 2017 that they would no longer offer SHOP coverage in 2018, and would instead transition their SHOP enrollees to small business coverage outside the exchange.

At that point, there were only 3,287 people enrolled in SHOP coverage in Minnesota — far below the 155,000 people that were originally projected to have coverage through MNsure’s SHOP program by 2016 (this much lower-than-anticipated enrollment has been the case in nearly every state’s SHOP exchange. This situation is not unique to Minnesota). State law provided 25% premium rebate in 2017. Amendment to allow plans without essential benefits was cut from final legislationThroughout 2016, then-Governor Dayton called for a state-funded premium rebate for people who buy their own insurance but aren’t eligible for the ACA’s premium subsidies (those are only available for people with income up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $100,400 for a family of four in 2019).Governor Dayton also noted that the government needed to act quickly to stabilize the individual market in Minnesota, and by late November 2016, his patience with lawmakers was wearing thin. In a November 23 press conference, Dayton said that House Republicans needed to “stop dilly-dallying” and decide whether to move forward with Dayton’s rebate proposal.Dayton had also indicated that he was considering calling a special session of the legislature after election day to address the situation, and that was being negotiated for December 20.

But the talks fell through when Dayton and Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt couldn’t agree on the three bills that would have been addressed in the special session. As a result, there was no special session.Instead, the issue was taken up by lawmakers as soon as the 2017 legislative session began. On January 5, Minnesota Senators Michelle Benson (R, 31st District) and Gary Dahms (R, 16th District) introduced S.F.1. The bill called for using $300 million in state funding to provide a 25 percent rebate to roughly 125,000 people in Minnesota.S.F.1 passed the Minnesota Senate by a 35-31 vote on January 12. Only one DFL Senator (Melisa Franzen, from Edina) voted with Republicans in favor of the legislation.

It was then sent to the House, where an amendment was added that stripped out the requirement that health plans provide various mandated benefits (see “Journal of the Day” section “Top of page 154” in this version of the bill. Under the terms of the amendment, as long as a carrier offered at least one plan with all the mandated benefits, they would have been allowed to offer others without mandated benefits).The amended bill was sent back to the Senate on January 23. Differences between the bills that the two chambers passed had to be reconciled before being sent to Governor Dayton for his signature. By that point, the amendment to allow less-robust plans to be sold had garnered national attention, and public outrage helped to push lawmakers away from the provision. S.F.1 had also called for $150 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2018 (through June 30, 2019) from the state general fund to a state-based reinsurance program to stabilize the individual market (Alaska did something similar in 2016, preventing a market collapse), but that provision was also removed in the final version (Minnesota did ultimately set up a reinsurance program, effective in 2018, which has served to stabilize the market and reduce premiums).A Conference Committee in the Senate recommended that the House “recede from its amendments” and the Conference Committee report passed the Senate on a 47-19 vote.

The House passed the bill a few hours later, 108-19. It was sent to Governor Dayton, who immediately signed it into law. DFLers did have to compromise on one issue during the process. S.F.1 allows for-profit HMOs to begin operating in Minnesota’s individual market, which had long been limited to non-profit HMOs.Consumers were told to expect the premium rebates to show up by April 2017, but they were retroactively effective to January 2017. So a person who had been paying full price for a plan since January 2017 saw a substantial premium reduction on the April or May invoice.

Going forward, for the remainder of the year, a 25 percent rebate applied each month.Since S.F.1 was signed into law with only a few days remaining in open enrollment (it ended January 31 that year), Governor Dayton and exchange officials were worried that there wouldn’t be enough time for people to learn about the rebate and apply for coverage before January 31. In December, Dayton had asked HHS to allow MNsure to extend its enrollment deadline to February 28 (instead of January 31) in order to allow lawmakers more time to work out the details of a state-based premium rebate while still allowing people to enroll after the legislative process is complete.HHS denied the request for a blanket extension, but MNsure used their own authority on January 28 to grant a one-week special enrollment period (February 1 to February 8) due to exceptional circumstances. Although the state-based 25 percent premium rebate was available on or off the exchange, the one-week extension was only valid through MNsure. Health insurers did not have to accept off-exchange enrollments without a qualifying event after January 31.The 25 percent premium rebate program in Minnesota was only authorized for one year, so the rebates did not continue into 2018. And although almost 100,000 people received premium relief through the program in 2017, it ended up costing less than the legislature had allocated, and about $100 million was returned to the state’s budget at the end of 2017.Protecting Medicaid enrollees from estate liensIn every state, Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and the federal government.

Longstanding federal regulations, which predate the ACA, require states to “seek recovery of payments from the individual’s estate for nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services” for any Medicaid enrollee over the age of 55. This applies essentially to long-term care services, but states also have the option to go after the individual’s estate to recover costs for other care that was provided by Medicaid after age 55.Prior to 2014, this wasn’t typically an issue, as Medicaid eligibility was generally restricted by asset tests or requirements that applicants be disabled or pregnant (although Minnesota did have much more generous Medicaid eligibility guidelines than most states prior to 2014). But as of 2014, in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, the only eligibility guideline is income. Applicants with income that doesn’t exceed 138 percent of the poverty level are directed to Medicaid, regardless of any assets they might have.When applicants use the health insurance exchange — MNsure in Minnesota — they’re automatically funneled into Medical Assistance (Medicaid) if their income is under 138 percent of the poverty level. But what these enrollees didn’t know was that the state also had a program in place to put liens on estates for Medicaid-provided services for people age 55 and older.The combination of these systems caught numerous residents off guard.

They were enrolled in Medical Assistance through MNsure based on their income, but were not aware that liens were being placed on their homes so that the state could recoup the costs upon their deaths.State Senator Tony Lourey (DFL, District 11) addressed the issue with language included in HF2749, the Omnibus supplemental budget bill, which was signed into law by Governor Dayton on June 1, 2016. The legislation limits estate recovery to just what’s required under federal Medicaid rules (ie, essentially, long-term care costs for people age 55 or older), and makes the provision retroactive to January 1, 2014.Early tech strugglesMNsure opened for business in the fall of 2013, but technological issues persisted well into 2015, despite numerous improvements throughout 2014. Given MNsure’s difficult launch, the state conducted a series of audits and reviews. The first audit reviewed how MNsure spent state and federal money. Auditors concluded that the exchange has generally adequate internal controls and found no fraud or abuse.

The review was conducted by the state Office of the Legislative Auditor, and the report was published in October 2014.Another audit, also conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor and released in November 2014, found that the MNsure system in some cases incorrectly determined who qualified for public health benefits. The errors occurred during the first open enrollment period, before a series of system fixes were implemented. The audit did not quantify the total financial impact of the errors. The state Human Services commissioner said a consultant working on technical fixes to MNsure concluded that the eligibility functionality was working correctly as of June 2014.A third audit, a performance evaluation report released in February 2015, said “MNsure’s failures outweighed its achievements.” Among other criticisms, auditors said MNsure staff withheld information from the board of directors and state officials, the enrollment website was seriously flawed and launched without adequate testing, and the first-year enrollment target was unrealistically low.In April 2014, MNsure hired Deloitte Consulting to audit MNsure’s technology and improve the website to make enrolling in coverage and updating life events easier and more streamlined. Deloitte has been involved in successful state-run marketplaces for Connecticut, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Washington.Software upgrades were installed in August 2014, and system testing continued right up until the start of open enrollment.

To reduce wait times for consumers and insurance professionals, MNsure increased its call center and support staff and launched a dedicated service line for agents and brokers.More in-person assisters were available in Minnesota for the 2015 open enrollment period. MNsure encourages residents to utilize the exchange’s assister directory to find local navigators and brokers who can help with the enrollment process.MNsure has improved dramatically in terms of its technology since the early days of ACA implementation, and enrollment increased every year from 2014 through 2019.Lawmakers approved switching to HealthCare.gov as of 2019, but governor vetoedOn May 9, 2017, lawmakers in Minnesota passed SF800, an omnibus health and human services bill. Among many other things, the legislation called for switching from MNsure to the federally-run marketplace (HealthCare.gov) starting in 2019 (see Section 5). But Governor Dayton vetoed it.Gov. Dayton has long been supportive of MNsure, and had previously clarified that he would veto the bill.

In noting his plans to veto the legislation, Dayton made no mention of the transition to HealthCare.gov that was included in the legislation, but focused instead on the sharp budget cuts in the bill. But his veto ensured that MNsure would remain in place, at least for the time being.The Senate’s original version of SF800 did not call for scrapping MNsure, but the bill went through considerable back-and-forth between the two chambers, and the version that passed was the 4th engrossment of the bill.In March 2015, Dayton had asked the legislature to create a Task Force on Health Care Financing that would study MNsure along with possible future alternatives. Dayton noted in his letter that he supported making MNsure “directly accountable to the governor and subject to the same legislative oversight as other state agencies” and his budget included half a million dollars devoted to the task force. The spending bill was approved by the legislature in May, and the 29-member task force was appointed in the summer.One of the possibilities that the task force considered was the possibility of switching to Healthcare.gov, but it’s clear that there was no cut-and-dried answer to the question of whether Minnesota is better served by having a state-run exchange, switching to a federally-run exchange, or teaming up with the federal government on either a supported state-based marketplace or partnership exchange.In a December 2015 meeting of the task force, the MN Department of Human Services presented a financial analysis of the alternatives available to MNsure. They determined that switching entirely to Healthcare.gov would cost the state an additional $5.1 million in one-time costs from June 2016 to June 2017.

And switching to a supported state-based marketplace would cost an additional $6.6 million during that same time frame. If the state had opted to switch to Healthcare.gov, the soonest it could have happened was 2018, since HHS requires a year’s notice from states wishing to transition to Healthcare.gov, and Minnesota wouldn’t have been in a position to make a decision until sometime in 2016.There were significant reservations about making that switch prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling on King v. Burwell. The Court ruled in June 2015 that subsidies are legal in every state, including those that use Healthcare.gov. Prior to the decision, a switch to Healthcare.gov could have jeopardized subsidies for tens of thousands of Minnesota residents.

But once it was clear that Healthcare.gov’s subsidies are safe, some stakeholders began calling for Minnesota to scrap its state-run exchange and use Healthcare.gov instead. Because the MNsure task force was included in the 2016 budget, no hasty decisions were made.In January 2016, the task force submitted their recommendations to the legislature. They covered a broad range of issues, but did not recommend that MNsure transition to the federal enrollment platform. Lawmakers essentially left the exchange alone during the 2016 legislative session.The magnitude of the 2016 rate increases that were announced in October resulted in MNsure opponents renewing their calls to switch to Healthcare.gov. But it’s important to keep in mind that the 41 percent weighted average rate hike in Minnesota was market-wide, and did not just apply to MNsure enrollees.

In fact, the off-exchange carrier (PreferredOne) had among the highest rate hikes in the state for 2016, at 39 percent, and the exchange’s weighted average rate increase (38.5 percent) was lower than the weighted average rate increase for the whole individual market (41 percent).Minnesota health insurance exchange linksMNsure855-3MNSURE (855-366-7873)State Exchange Profile. MinnesotaThe Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation overview of Minnesota’s progress toward creating a state health insurance exchange.Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts.Key takeaways Medicaid expansion in HawaiiHawaii adopted Medicaid expansion through the Affordable Care Act, extending eligibility for Medicaid to adults with income up to 133 percent of the poverty level (138 percent with the automatic 5 percent income disregard).

Medicaid expansion took effect in January 2014.According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 70,000 Hawaii residents were uninsured in 2015. With Medicaid expansion now covering low-income, nonelderly adults, 50 percent of Hawaii’s remaining uninsured population at that point was eligible for Medicaid – although they may not realize that they’re eligible. According to U.S. Census data, only 3.5 percent of Hawaii residents were uninsured as of 2016, down from 6.7 percent in 2013. Although the state’s uninsured rate was reduced by nearly half from 2013 to 2016, it was already less than half of the national average uninsured rate even in 2013, before the bulk of the ACA’s provisions had taken effect.

Hawaii’s Prepaid Health Care Act, which has been in place since the 1970s, had already resulted in nearly all of the state’s population having insurance coverage, even before the ACA took effect. However, with the erectile dysfunction outbreak, job losses and the subsequent loss of employer-provided insurance have contributed to a jump in the uninsured rate across the U.S. As of May 2020, Hawaii’s uninsured rate was 10 percent.Medicaid expansion helped cement top-ranking health scores Federalpoverty levelcalculator 0.0% of Federal Poverty Level Hawaii has a long history of supporting initiatives to make health insurance broadly available to residents. Hawaii was among the first six states that implemented a Medicaid program in January 1966, just six months after federal legislation authorizing the program was enacted. In 1974, Hawaii implemented its Prepaid Health Care Act, which mandated that most employers make health insurance available to employees who work at least 20 hours a week.In conjunction with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Hawaii initially implemented a state-run health insurance marketplace and adopted Medicaid expansion.

The marketplace transitioned to a federally-supported state-run marketplace for 2016, and transitioned again to a fully federally-run exchange for 2017, largely in an effort to take advantage of the economies of scale that the federally-run exchange could bring to a state with low overall enrollment in the individual market (because of Hawaii’s Prepaid Health Care Act, nearly all non-elderly Hawaii residents get coverage from an employer, and relatively few need coverage under individual market plans). Nothing changed about Medicaid with the switch to Healthcare.gov though. The expanded Medicaid eligibility guidelines are still in effect in Hawaii.Through its efforts, Hawaii consistently has low uninsured rates and high overall health scores. As of 2015, Hawaii was ranked the healthiest state in the nation according to the Gallup Healthways Physical Wellbeing Index, and the state consistently scores near the top in other ranking systems (number 2 the America’s Health Rankings 2017 survey, and number 3 in the Commonwealth Fund’s 2017 Scorecard on State Health System Performance).Who is eligible for Medicaid in Hawaii?. Hawaii’s Medicaid eligibility levels for children are much higher than the national average and about average for pregnant women and parents.Children ages 0-18 qualify with family income levels up to 308 of the federal poverty level (FPL)Pregnant women qualify with family income up to 191 percent of FPLParents and other adults qualify with family income up to 138 percent of FPLHawaii also uses Medicaid funds to help cover premium costs for Hawaii residents who aren’t U.S.

Citizens but who are citizens of nations that have entered into the Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the U.S.How do I enroll in Medicaid in Hawaii?. Hawaii’s Medicaid program is called MED-QUEST (MQD). QUEST stands for Quality care, Universal access, Efficient utilization, Stabilizing costs, and Transforming the way health care is provided to recipients.You can apply for MED-QUEST. Hawaii Medicaid enrollment numbersMore than 351,000 people were enrolled in Hawaii’s Medicaid and CHIP programs as of June 2020. This figure is a 22% increase over 2013 (pre-ACA) enrollment, when about 288,000 people were enrolled.

Accordingly to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 107,300 of those enrolled in Hawaii Medicaid are part of the ACA-authorized expansion as of June 2019.Hawaii Medicaid historyHawaii implemented its Medicaid program in January 1966.In the early 1990s, Hawaii implemented the State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to cover people who weren’t eligible for Medicaid. Then, in 1994, CMS approved Hawaii’s section 1115 Medicaid waiver (one of the first in the nation) to wrap SHIP in with Medicaid in an effort to achieve universal insurance coverage (in combination with the state’s Prepaid Health Care Act). The result of the waiver was the creation of Hawaii’s MED-QUEST program, which initially covered low-income women and children, but has since expanded (as of 2009) to cover nearly all of Hawaii’s Medicaid beneficiaries. The MED-QUEST waiver is subject to renewal every five years.Medicaid in Hawaii is separated into two different methods of providing services. The fee-for-service (FFS) program and the managed care program, called MED-QUEST or MQD.

Under the FFS program, doctors and other healthcare providers bill Medicaid directly to be reimbursed for services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. Under MED-QUEST, the state contracts with managed care plans who in turn provide healthcare services to Medicaid beneficiaries.As of 2011, more than 98 percent of the people enrolled in Hawaii’s Medicaid program were covered through managed care. By March 2015, Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 335,007 Medicaid enrollees in Hawaii were covered under managed care programs. That’s higher than the August 2015 total Medicaid/CHIP enrollment count, but KFF notes that the managed care number includes people who are covered under Hawaii’s fully-state-funded Medicaid program, in addition to the majority of enrollees who are in regular Medicaid that’s funded partially by the state and partially by the federal government.In August 2017, Hawaii submitted a waiver amendment to CMS in order to gain federal approval to use Medicaid funding to provide housing services to qualified Medicaid enrollees who are homeless and also have behavioral health and/or substance abuse problems. That waiver request was still pending as of February 2018.Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006.

She has written dozens of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org. Her state health exchange updates are regularly cited by media who cover health reform and by other health insurance experts..

Cialis overdose

All doctoral students strive for the day—after years of often all-consuming study—that their cialis overdose thesis is ready to submit. For both doctoral students and supervisors there is often trepidation about whether the thesis will cialis overdose meet the criteria to merit the award of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). As anxieties increase, doctoral students often ask what makes a good PhD, something we explored in a recent ‘Research Made Simple’ article,1 but perhaps the more important question is ‘what makes a PhD student successful?. €™ In this article we outline cialis overdose the core criteria on which PhD theses are judged and offer suggestions for achieving success.How are PhDs assessedTraditionally, a PhD involves 3 to 4 years of full-time study (or a longer part-time programme), which is assessed by the student submitting the work they have undertaken as a thesis or—less commonly—a portfolio of published papers and an associated narrative (sometimes referred to as ‘PhD by publication’). In addition, the student must undertake an oral defence of their work through a discussion (the ‘viva’) with examiners, who are deemed to be experts in the field of study or with related methodological expertise.2A thesis is a self-contained monograph written by the student which:Sets out the problem and context of the research, including theoretical perspectives.Outlines existing approaches that have addressed the problem or related issues before, typically by undertaking a thorough critical analysis of literature and identifying a gap in the evidence.Justifies and critically evaluates the research methodologies and methods chosen to address the problem.Presents the finding of the research and how they add to existing knowledge.Makes recommendations as to how the findings can advance the discipline and improve practice, and/or suggest further research directions.What criteria are used to assess a PhD thesis?.

The core criteria for PhD success—ubiquitous to all disciplines and universities—are that the student;Has made an original and significant contribution to knowledge of the topic under investigation;Draws on a well-argued and cohesive conceptual/theoretical framework;Demonstrates the ability to critically evaluate and justify the research methodology and methods adopted;Can convey information (written and verbally) succinctly;Produces a thesis is of sufficient rigour that the work is evaluated as publishable in relevant discipline-specific journal(s).Table 1 highlights some of the key ingredients of PhD success, in terms of the study, thesis and viva.View this table:Table cialis overdose 1 Key principles to PhD study successJustifying methodsThe justification of methodological choices is usually presented in a distinct chapter that typically has two components. First, a ‘big picture’ description of the theoretical perspective and methodological justification (sometimes called the research approach), followed by an account of procedure (methods) of how the research was undertaken.Critical writingAn essential criterion expected from examiners is that students demonstrate criticality in the way they present and defend information. This can be a challenge, and many PhD students perceive that there is little guidance about how to develop effective arguments and few opportunities to develop critical writing skills.2 3 Similar to developing knowledge and understanding of research methods, students need the knowledge and skills for effective oral communication of ideas and writing.3The student must be able to write succinctly and critically to produce a robust and coherent thesis.2 4 A thesis should open with a clear outline of the problem, informing the reader what the cialis overdose thesis about and why the topic is important. It should detail what contexts and perspectives are relevant cialis overdose and offer an outline to the layout of the thesis. In all chapters, students should consider the following:Use of ‘signposts’ to tell the reader where they are going to go, summarising afterwards and providing appropriate links throughout.Meaningful headings.

The content of chapters and sections need to reflect the heading.Avoidance cialis overdose of vague terms or superfluous words, keeping sentences clear and focussed.Paragraphs that are distinct enough to explore and evaluate a clear issue but linked well enough to enhance the flow of the thesis. A general rule of thumb is that a paragraph should be about half a page. Any less and there is limited criticality, cialis overdose any longer and there is a tendency to ramble, lose focus and cause the reader to become disengaged.A PhD is not about how much the student can write. It is about how well they articulate and critically analyse information.Critical writing at Doctoral level is essential to establish the quality of the research and the credibility of the researcher. A good thesis creates a portrait of an authoritative and competent researcher, and critical writing is crucial for building the examiners’ confidence in the research undertaken.Publishable cialis overdose standard of the workPublishing in refereed journals and conferences is the traditional way in which the research community disseminates findings and builds knowledge, although there is increasing recognition of the role of social media platforms as a means of rapidly sharing knowledge.

Refereed journals cialis overdose use recognised standards (such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines for trials)5 and rigorous review processes to assess the quality of a research paper, which must be met for successful publication. It is therefore unsurprising that many examiners view a thesis more favourably if a student provides evidence of having published elements of their work.6Summary of key considerationsUnlike undergraduate assessment, there is a paucity of research exploring the assessment of PhDs. However, a study that explored the process and judgements of experienced examiners,6 provided a valuable summary of the characteristics of a poor and excellent thesis (table 2).View this table:Table 2 Characteristics of a poor and excellent thesis6ConclusionThis article has outlined some of the steps that a PhD student should consider in order to produce a high-quality thesis and ensure a cialis overdose successful viva. We have considered how it is important that decision-making is transparent in the thesis, and defendable in the oral defence/viva. A PhD thesis should show cialis overdose evidence of originality and theoretical/conceptual cohesiveness, communicated via the student’s critical writing ability.

The thesis and defence provide students with the opportunity to share their knowledge and expertise in the field, offers them a methodological stage and gives the platform to share their critical perceptions, experiences and expertise..

All doctoral students strive for the day—after years of often all-consuming study—that generic cialis 10mg online their thesis is ready to submit. For both doctoral students and supervisors there is often trepidation about whether the thesis will meet the criteria to merit the award of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) generic cialis 10mg online. As anxieties increase, doctoral students often ask what makes a good PhD, something we explored in a recent ‘Research Made Simple’ article,1 but perhaps the more important question is ‘what makes a PhD student successful?. €™ In this article we outline the core criteria on which PhD theses are judged and offer suggestions for achieving success.How are PhDs assessedTraditionally, a PhD involves 3 to 4 years of full-time study (or a longer part-time programme), which is assessed generic cialis 10mg online by the student submitting the work they have undertaken as a thesis or—less commonly—a portfolio of published papers and an associated narrative (sometimes referred to as ‘PhD by publication’).

In addition, the student must undertake an oral defence of their work through a discussion (the ‘viva’) with examiners, who are deemed to be experts in the field of study or with related methodological expertise.2A thesis is a self-contained monograph written by the student which:Sets out the problem and context of the research, including theoretical perspectives.Outlines existing approaches that have addressed the problem or related issues before, typically by undertaking a thorough critical analysis of literature and identifying a gap in the evidence.Justifies and critically evaluates the research methodologies and methods chosen to address the problem.Presents the finding of the research and how they add to existing knowledge.Makes recommendations as to how the findings can advance the discipline and improve practice, and/or suggest further research directions.What criteria are used to assess a PhD thesis?. The core criteria for PhD success—ubiquitous to all disciplines and universities—are that the student;Has made an original and significant contribution to knowledge of the topic under investigation;Draws on a well-argued and cohesive conceptual/theoretical framework;Demonstrates the ability to critically evaluate and justify the research methodology and methods adopted;Can convey information (written and verbally) succinctly;Produces a thesis is of sufficient rigour that the work is evaluated generic cialis 10mg online as publishable in relevant discipline-specific journal(s).Table 1 highlights some of the key ingredients of PhD success, in terms of the study, thesis and viva.View this table:Table 1 Key principles to PhD study successJustifying methodsThe justification of methodological choices is usually presented in a distinct chapter that typically has two components. First, a ‘big picture’ description of the theoretical perspective and methodological justification (sometimes called the research approach), followed by an account of procedure (methods) of how the research was undertaken.Critical writingAn essential criterion expected from examiners is that students demonstrate criticality in the way they present and defend information. This can be a challenge, and many PhD students perceive that there is little guidance about how to develop effective arguments and generic cialis 10mg online few opportunities to develop critical writing skills.2 3 Similar to developing knowledge and understanding of research methods, students need the knowledge and skills for effective oral communication of ideas and writing.3The student must be able to write succinctly and critically to produce a robust and coherent thesis.2 4 A thesis should open with a clear outline of the problem, informing the reader what the thesis about and why the topic is important.

It should detail what contexts and perspectives are relevant and offer generic cialis 10mg online an outline to the layout of the thesis. In all chapters, students should consider the following:Use of ‘signposts’ to tell the reader where they are going to go, summarising afterwards and providing appropriate links throughout.Meaningful headings. The content of chapters and sections need to reflect generic cialis 10mg online the heading.Avoidance of vague terms or superfluous words, keeping sentences clear and focussed.Paragraphs that are distinct enough to explore and evaluate a clear issue but linked well enough to enhance the flow of the thesis. A general rule of thumb is that a paragraph should be about half a page.

Any less and there is limited criticality, any longer and there is generic cialis 10mg online a tendency to ramble, lose focus and cause the reader to become disengaged.A PhD is not about how much the student can write. It is about how well they articulate and critically analyse information.Critical writing at Doctoral level is essential to establish the quality of the research and the credibility of the researcher. A good thesis creates a portrait of an authoritative and competent researcher, and critical writing is crucial for building the examiners’ confidence in the research undertaken.Publishable standard of the workPublishing in refereed journals and conferences is the traditional way in which the research community disseminates findings and builds knowledge, although there is increasing recognition generic cialis 10mg online of the role of social media platforms as a means of rapidly sharing knowledge. Refereed journals use recognised generic cialis 10mg online standards (such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines for trials)5 and rigorous review processes to assess the quality of a research paper, which must be met for successful publication.

It is therefore unsurprising that many examiners view a thesis more favourably if a student provides evidence of having published elements of their work.6Summary of key considerationsUnlike undergraduate assessment, there is a paucity of research exploring the assessment of PhDs. However, a study that explored the process and judgements of experienced examiners,6 provided a valuable summary of the characteristics of a poor and excellent thesis (table 2).View this table:Table 2 Characteristics of a poor and excellent generic cialis 10mg online thesis6ConclusionThis article has outlined some of the steps that a PhD student should consider in order to produce a high-quality thesis and ensure a successful viva. We have considered how it is important that decision-making is transparent in the thesis, and defendable in the oral defence/viva. A PhD thesis should show evidence of originality generic cialis 10mg online and theoretical/conceptual cohesiveness, communicated via the student’s critical writing ability.

The thesis and defence provide students with the opportunity to share their knowledge and expertise in the field, offers them a methodological stage and gives the platform to share their critical perceptions, experiences and expertise..

.