Building Automation Systems (BAS) Market Industry Dynamics and Contributions by Honeywell International, Johnson Controls, Novar, Siemens AG, Carrier Corporation, Trane, Delta Controls, Robert Bosch GmbHSam Altman may be playing Santa with OpenAI’s – a series of splashy product releases that kicked off Thursday – but with the news that Donald Trump plans to appoint investor and former COO working closely with Elon Musk as head of a Department of Government Efficiency, Altman may soon find himself facing a two-headed Grinch. The Musk-Sacks duo have been publicly critical of OpenAI, and there's a fair amount of contentious history among the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Musk, of course, nine years ago but left after a power struggle and has since launched rival company xAI. (Musk has also filed multiple lawsuits against OpenAI, including the latest which seeks to stop OpenAI from transitioning from a "capped-profit" company into a fully for-profit enterprise). Sacks' VC firm Craft Ventures has invested an undisclosed amount of money in Musk’s xAI. And Sacks has not been shy in expressing his disdain for some of OpenAI’s recent moves, saying on his last month that OpenAI has "gone from nonprofit philanthropy to piranha for-profit company.” What could a Musk-Sacks one-two punch do to harm a competitor like OpenAI? In theory, as earlier this week, Trump's new billionaire advisors could use their positions and influence to steer government AI contracts to their own companies, and to push the government to crack down on competitors like OpenAI. In addition to wearing the AI and crypto , Sacks will lead the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which makes science, technology, and innovation policy recommendations to the President and the White House. Musk, meanwhile, could use his to eliminate governmental hurdles facing xAI or artificial intelligence more broadly, said Richard Schoenstein, vice chair of litigation practice at law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, who called Musk’s dual role as businessman and Trump advisor a “dangerous combination." It's no wonder Altman is trying to make nice. At the this week, Altman said he was “tremendously sad” about tensions with Musk, and dismissed the idea that Musk could use political power to hurt competitors and advantage his own businesses. “It would be profoundly un-American,” he said. And when Trump anointed Sacks as AI czar on Thursday evening, Altman quickly posted a congratulatory message on . If the intent was to make a public gesture of goodwill however, it had the opposite effect, and only further confirmed Altman's predicament: All of this comes at a delicate moment for OpenAI. The $157 billion-valued startup is not only working on a plan to that is not controlled by a non-profit board, but is also reportedly hoping for more investment by removing the infamous 'AGI' clause with , which is OpenAI’s largest shareholder thanks to a $13 billion investment. The AGI clause was implemented to keep powerful artificial general intelligence from being exploited by commercial interests and OpenAI’s nonprofit board exclusively determines when AGI is achieved. By removing the clause and transitioning OpenAI to a for-profit, Altman could be in a position to gain significant equity in the company, something investors are “pushing hard” for, a source familiar with the situation told Fortune recently. The technical challenges that must still be overcome to achieve AGI are immense. But as OpenAI pushes ahead on its mission, the role of government regulation will become increasingly important. And on that front, Sacks and Musk have each made nuanced comments that make it difficult to predict what kind of policies they might push for in the Trump administration. Sacks, for example, in which he said that while he was in favor of accelerating technological progress he found “something unsettling” about OpenAI’s declared mission to create AGI. “I doubt OpenAI would be subject to so many attacks from the safety movement if it wasn’t constantly declaring its outright intention to create AGI. To the extent the mission produces extra motivation for the team to ship good products, it’s a positive. To the extent it might actually succeed, it’s a reason for concern," Sacks . Musk, for his part, has frequently voiced concerns about AGI falling into the wrong hands and, earlier this year, predicted that AI could surpass human intelligence by the end of 2025. In March 2023, he signed an on developing AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, warning of "profound risks to society and humanity." Scientist Max Tegmark, who authored the letter for his nonprofit Future of Life Institute, recently praised Musk’s potential influence on Trump, suggesting it might lead to stronger AI safety standards. These positions could bolster the argument that Musk might take steps to slow OpenAI’s path to AGI, particularly since Musk also supported the , which was meant to regulate the development and use of the largest and most powerful AI models. That said, Altman might yet benefit from Sacks’ views on accelerating AI development and loosening restrictions. Many have predicted, for example, that Trump will do away with . And if Sacks’ own X posts are any indication, the EO's days could be numbered. When the executive order was announced, Sacks tweeted that “the U.S. political and fiscal situation is hopelessly broken, but we have one unparalleled asset as a country: cutting-edge innovation in AI driven by a completely free and unregulated market for software development." With the Biden AI order, , "that just ended." This story was originally featured on
Tim Dankha and Prolific Mortgage: Redefining Excellence in the Mortgage Industry 12-13-2024 10:30 PM CET | Industry, Real Estate & Construction Press release from: Getnews / PR Agency: White Label SEO Firm Image: https://www.globalnewslines.com/uploads/2024/12/1734091799.jpg Birmingham, MI - Timothy Edward Dankha, a prominent figure in the mortgage industry, has continued to raise the bar with his expertise and vision. Leading the charge at Timothy Edward Dankha [ http://timdankhaofficial.com/ ], Dankha's commitment to excellence has positioned him as one of the most trusted names in mortgage lending. As the driving force behind Prolific Mortgage [ https://prolificmortgage.com/ ], Dankha's innovative approach to financing has set a new standard for homebuyers and investors alike. With years of experience in the industry, Timothy Edward Dankha has made it his mission to streamline the mortgage process, offering clients unparalleled service and personalized solutions. His leadership at Tim Dankha's Mortgage Company [ https://www.linkedin.com/company/prolific-mortgage ] has fostered a culture of trust, transparency, and efficiency, making him a standout professional in the highly competitive mortgage market. Dankha's work with Prolific Mortgage, located in the heart of Birmingham, MI, has empowered thousands of families and individuals to achieve their homeownership dreams. His company's approach goes beyond standard industry practices by offering customized mortgage solutions that cater to each client's unique financial needs. Whether it's purchasing a first home, refinancing an existing mortgage, or securing investment properties, Prolific Mortgage is dedicated to delivering results that exceed expectations. "We believe in making homeownership accessible for everyone, regardless of their situation," said Timothy Edward Dankha. "Our goal is to create long-lasting relationships with our clients by providing them with the best options available in the market, ensuring that they have the support they need throughout the entire mortgage process." As a leader in the mortgage industry, Dankha is not only focused on expanding his business but is also committed to giving back to the community. He actively supports various local initiatives and aims to make a positive impact on the region. His dedication to both his clients and the community sets him apart in an industry that often prioritizes profits over people. Prolific Mortgage's continued success under Timothy Edward Dankha's leadership is a testament to his dedication and vision. By fostering a customer-first mentality and integrating cutting-edge technologies into the mortgage process, Dankha and his team at Prolific Mortgage are reshaping the way mortgages are done. Clients are given not only the best rates but also a seamless, stress-free experience, making them feel confident every step of the way. One of the cornerstones of Prolific Mortgage's philosophy is its commitment to financial education. Dankha believes in empowering clients with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions about their finances. Through workshops, one-on-one consultations, and informative resources, Timothy Edward Dankha ensures that each client is equipped to navigate the mortgage process with confidence. For more information about Timothy Edward Dankha and the services provided by Prolific Mortgage, please visit their website or reach out via email at themdankhaholdings@gmail.com Image: https://www.getnews.info/jscripts/tiny_mce1/themes/advanced/img/trans.gif About Timothy Edward Dankha Timothy Edward Dankha is an established leader in the mortgage industry with years of experience helping clients achieve their homeownership goals. As the CEO of Tim Dankha's Mortgage Company, he has earned a reputation for his client-focused approach, professionalism, and commitment to excellence. Media Contact Contact Person: Timothy Edward Dankha Email: Send Email [ http://www.universalpressrelease.com/?pr=tim-dankha-and-prolific-mortgage-redefining-excellence-in-the-mortgage-industry ] Phone: (248) 533-8480 Address:166 W Maple Rd Ste 200 City: Birmingham State: MI 48009 Country: United States Website: http://timdankhaofficial.com This release was published on openPR.Corey puts up 27 and South Alabama knocks off East Texas A&M 81-72The presumptive Secretary of Education is married to a man whose former employee alleges he forced her to perform sex acts with his friend for an hour and a half after he . The presumptive Commerce Secretary preemptively sued his former assistant in 2018, after her lawyer threatened to publicize “not pretty” she’d received from him and his wife. The presumptive Health and Human Services director’s explanation for a former nanny’s breasts while holding her hostage in a kitchen pantry was that he “had a very, very rambunctious youth”; he was 46 at the time. The White House efficiency czar, currently a defendant in a putative class-action lawsuit filed by eight former employees who him of perpetrating an “Animal House” work environment of “rampant sexual harassment,” and paid a quarter of a million dollars to a flight attendant who says he got naked and asked her to touch his erect penis in exchange for the gift of a horse. And of course the presumptive Defense Secretary was who was tasked with monitoring what she described to police as his “creeper vibes” after a at which he was a keynote speaker, just a month and change after the birth of his fourth child with a woman who was not his wife at the time. (Reader, she married him.) The aggressive rapeyness of the second Donald Trump administration is so tyrannical it’s almost enough to make a girl wistful for Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman who withdrew his name from attorney general contention yesterday (to make way for the ) amid an orgy of leaks from two investigations into his sexploits with a 17-year-old procured by a convicted sex trafficker friend. Multiple witnesses testified that Gaetz did not actually know the 17-year-old was underage, you see, and that he ceased having sex with her when he found out. I don’t have a lot of warmth in my heart for Barack Obama, but America will always have the fact that he was never a world-renowned horndog. When he took office, as I remarked a year ago in an , the entire culture was dominated by networks of organized sex abuse. The was run by an unabashed sex predator. The second-coolest clothing brand was run by a . The predominant underwear retailer was a front for Jeffrey Epstein, who was propositioning young women while literally serving a supposed “prison sentence” for sex crimes. The Vatican was helmed by a guy who spent his entire career covering up sex abuse accusations. Republicans had just lost control of Congress to revelations over their complicity in the of a prominent Florida congressman and others; the Speaker of the House at the time quietly stepped down and would later be revealed as a systematic child sex abuser while he was a high school wrestling coach in the 1970s. The Abu Ghraib scandal showcased ritual sexual humiliation as a top American export. One-fifth of female veterans were diagnosed with disorders stemming from . Insatiable serial rapists ran the and the music business; children's television was dominated by an , and so we would learn was the , , organized , and of course just about every sector and obscure subsector of high and low finance. During the Obama years millions of manufacturing jobs were wiped out, income inequality gaped, opioids consumed whole communities, and the titans of finance who collapsed the economy through fraud went unprosecuted, but “rape culture” retreated. Kid Cudi stole Diddy’s girlfriend, Kendrick Lamar made rap poetry again, the star of the era’s top-grossing movie franchise in the Dakotas getting arrested for protesting oil pipelines. “Wokeness” in those early days conveyed a kind of vigilant neo-wholesomeness. It seemed in those days self-evident that sexual abuse was just a subset of dehumanization and exploitation that helpfully, unlike most forms of exploitation, happened to be illegal. And the moral core of resistance liberalism was a rejection of dehumanization in all forms. Where both Hillary and Trump had tried semi-successfully to redirect rape culture backlash against one another and other enemy tribes—the apocryphal “Bernie Bros” for Hillary, immigrants for Trump—the Pussy Hats found the apex of their cultural cachet fighting for someone they didn’t know: mothers whose babies had been seized at the border and warehoused in massive colorless child prisons, per a policy that had been somehow initially enacted under Barack Obama. It is so easy to forget now how the success of that movement led Ivanka Trump to lobby her father to issue an executive order 18 months into his presidency that ended the separations. During the pandemic again, resistance outrage on behalf of the invisible “essential workers” brought immediate material gains to nursing home aides, delivery drivers and meatpacking plant staffers in the form of hazard pay, government checks and a new sense of their importance within the broader community. But powerful forces wanted desperately to absorb the “resistance” into the profitable realm of insular partisan tribalism we know as “identity politics.” A random moment lodged for whatever reason in my hippocampus was the afternoon a gaggle of female attorneys with “I believe Christine Blasey Ford” pins on their handbags filed into happy hour at my obscenely expensive restaurant. I believed her too, one thousand percent, but the pins were... just a bit much. Years later I’d watch Brett Kavanaugh, in all his heinous glory, pompously inveighing against opponents of the deal that enabled the Sackler family to abuse the bankruptcy code to keep their multibillion-dollar fortune legally off-limits to the hundreds of thousands of families their opioid empire’s deliberate conspiracy had torn apart. Clearly his high school boorishness had been merely a harbinger of a legacy that would ultimately prove much darker. But as long as the affluent teenagers who’d been victimized by his like grew up to become corporate lawyers and lobbyists, no one was really incentivized to spell out those connections. When some genius at Kamala HQ concocted “We are not going back,” every woman who believed Christine Blasey Ford knew in a visceral sense exactly what that meant. After raking DJT over the coals for schtupping Stormy Daniels 18 years ago and attacking E. Jean Carroll in the Bergdorf dressing room the same year Bill attacked Monica with that cigar, "back" is exactly where the elites wanted to go. In Pete Hegseth, with his crusader tattoos and membership in the Erik Prince groupchat and entire post-military career bankrolled by the Koch network, with his 2002 article in the Princeton Tory arguing that sex with an unconscious person does not constitute “rape” and his two-year lobbying campaign to —a man by a Navy SEAL colleague as “perfectly ok with killing anybody that was moving” who had been turned in by six members of his platoon because he was that “freaking evil”—we might have perhaps the purest distillation of right-wing rape culture in all its arrogant, white nationalist glory. Except, of course, it is now November 2024, and so for the past 412 days since the Israeli defense minister announced he was cutting off all food and water to 2.5 million largely innocent refugees, I have watched the forces of a thousand Eddie Gallaghers unleashed each day in the effort to dehumanize Palestinians into extinction. From November and December when we watched the IDF bomb every hospital and school in Gaza, to January when we saw the first large-scale protests to stop the entry of aid trucks into the territory, to the slaughter of more than 100 Gazans lined up for flour and the surgical assassination of foreign aid workers in the spring, to the emphatic and self-righteous calls by journalists for the IDF to adopt an explicit pro-sexual assault policy after ten prison guards were punished for sodomizing Palestinian detainees with hot metal rods. By the end of October, Gaza as a place cannot be said to exist, and all that defined the lives of the 2.5 million who once lived there has been obliterated, but the continued drive to destroy has only swollen, expanded to encompass Beirut and Damascus and even Amsterdam. This week Ha'aretz reported an “alarming rise” in rape inside Israel, especially among people under 18 who had been displaced from the south after October 7; forgive me if I am not alarmed. Throughout all of this Joe Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken and their whole coterie of indistinguishably robotic flacks have stood unflailingly behind Netanyahu and his genocidal band of Jewish supremacist freaks, even as they openly plotted to sabotage his presidency in favor of one that might funnel the same tens of billions with more explicit enthusiasm and I guess, cooler tattoos. This week, when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense secretary and Bernie Sanders in three ceremonial votes against sending any more offensive weapons to Israel, President Biden slammed the court as “outrageous,” labored behind the scenes to smear the senators as treasonous saboteurs and issued a formal statement consisting of little more than an unabashed dog whistle to Jewish supremacy: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas.” For thirteen months now, a Democratic presidential administration has been toiling to remind Palestinians and anyone who might sympathize with them that they are not by the standards of the ruling class fully human: “Your body, my choice,” as the Trumpists would say. Which brings me to the challenge ahead. Trump and his cabinet of sickos are about to spend the next four years doing some sadistic, heinous things. And yet the fact remains that the bar has been set by bankrolling a brand-new ICC-certified genocide; that’s the achievement of Joe Biden. And if we want our countrymen to unite in rejection of the cruelty around which Trump has built his brand, we cannot pretend the Democratic Party of 2024 represents a spotless alternative. We are not going back.
Neal Maupay causes controversy as he aims brutal dig at Everton team-matesPet bonds for renters passed into law
Jirga discusses steps to restore peace to Tirah valleySyrians cheer end of 50 years of Assad rule at first Friday prayers since government fell
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — Two former premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador say a draft energy agreement signed Thursday with Quebec shattered a political standoff that leaders had been trying to end for decades. Brian Tobin, a Liberal premier from 1996 to 2000, said the shift in political alignment will be good for the provinces, and for the entire country. "I think it is a long-awaited breaking of a gridlock in the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec," he said in an interview Friday. "I think that this is really important." The tensions stem from a contract signed by the two provinces in 1969, which allowed Quebec to buy hydroelectric power from the Churchill Falls plant in Labrador for just 0.2 cents per kilowatt hour. The contract was set to expire in 2041, and there was no allowance for the price to change with the market. On Thursday, Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Premier Andrew Furey literally tore up a copy of that contract as he sat beside Quebec Premier François Legault in St. John's, N.L. They inked a new agreement in principle stipulating that Quebec will pay more, beginning with one cent per kilowatt hour in 2025, and increasing in subsequent years. The province will also shell out an average of $1 billion a year until 2041, with increases to follow, and pay a $3.5-billion fee to partner on new energy projects in the Churchill River. Ultimately, Quebec will pay an average of 5.9 cents per kilowatt hour for energy from all Labrador sources over the 50-year contract. The deal comes with stipulations that prices can change along with the market, officials said Thursday. Tobin dismissed questions about whether one cent per kilowatt hour in the first year was enough of an improvement. He pointed to Newfoundland and Labrador's past unsuccessful attempts to challenge the 1969 deal in court, including in the Supreme Court of Canada. Under those rulings, Quebec has a legal right to continue paying next to nothing for Churchill Falls energy until 2041, Tobin said. Instead, after decades of bickering, they've chosen to turn the page. "One of the things that's important in this agreement is that it was not done with Newfoundland and Labrador's back to the wall," he said. "Many other premiers, myself included, tried to address this issue. In my case, there was still 42 or 43 years left in the agreement. So not much incentive for Quebec to become too creative in trying to address our needs." But Quebec needs energy, and new power projects take at least 10 years to build, so it was time for the province to act, he said. Former Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal premier Roger Grimes was also impressed by the end of the deal that has haunted the province since it was signed in 1969. "Every premier since then wished that they had found a partner in Quebec, like Premier Legault, who was willing to give some redress for (Churchill Falls)," said Grimes, who governed from 2001 to 2003. "And Premier Furey did. And thank God that he seized the moment." The 1969 contract isn't the only hydroelectric black eye in Newfoundland and Labrador's past. The province is still deep in debt because of the Muskrat Falls development, which is also on the Churchill River. The project was approved in 2012 with a price tag of about $7.4 billion, but by the time it was finally commissioned last year after years of delay, the price had nearly doubled. Grimes said the agreement signed Thursday not only rights the wrongs of 1969, but it reflects lessons learned from Muskrat Falls. Under the deal, Quebec will manage the construction of the two new projects and it will absorb all cost overruns while Newfoundland and Labrador will be the majority owner, he said. The Progressive Conservative government under Danny Williams pushed for Muskrat Falls, and Grimes believes Williams was driven by an anger toward Quebec and a need to prove that Newfoundland and Labrador didn't need them. Now, after Thursday's agreement, the two provinces are willing partners, in an arrangement that benefits them both, he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 13, 2024. Sarah Smellie, The Canadian PressCOMMERCE, Texas (AP) — Myles Corey had 27 points in South Alabama's 81-72 victory against East Texas A&M on Sunday. Corey also added five assists and four steals for the Jaguars (7-3). Barry Dunning Jr. scored 14 points and added five rebounds. John Broom went 4 of 5 from the field (3 for 3 from 3-point range) to finish with 11 points, while adding four steals. The Lions (1-10) were led in scoring by Khaliq Abdul-Mateen, who finished with 17 points. Yusef Salih added 17 points for Texas A&M-Commerce. Tay Mosher also had eight points. The loss is the seventh straight for the Lions. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar . For copyright information, check with the distributor of this item, Data Skrive.Thomas uses big drives and putts to hold lead in Bahamas
Renuka Rayasam | (TNS) KFF Health News In April, just 12 weeks into her pregnancy, Kathleen Clark was standing at the receptionist window of her OB-GYN’s office when she was asked to pay $960, the total the office estimated she would owe after she delivered. Clark, 39, was shocked that she was asked to pay that amount during this second prenatal visit. Normally, patients receive the bill after insurance has paid its part, and for pregnant women that’s usually only when the pregnancy ends. It would be months before the office filed the claim with her health insurer. Clark said she felt stuck. The Cleveland, Tennessee, obstetrics practice was affiliated with a birthing center where she wanted to deliver. Plus, she and her husband had been wanting to have a baby for a long time. And Clark was emotional, because just weeks earlier her mother had died. “You’re standing there at the window, and there’s people all around, and you’re trying to be really nice,” recalled Clark, through tears. “So, I paid it.” On online baby message boards and other social media forums , pregnant women say they are being asked by their providers to pay out-of-pocket fees earlier than expected. The practice is legal, but patient advocacy groups call it unethical. Medical providers argue that asking for payment up front ensures they get compensated for their services. How frequently this happens is hard to track because it is considered a private transaction between the provider and the patient. Therefore, the payments are not recorded in insurance claims data and are not studied by researchers. Patients, medical billing experts, and patient advocates say the billing practice causes unexpected anxiety at a time of already heightened stress and financial pressure. Estimates can sometimes be higher than what a patient might ultimately owe and force people to fight for refunds if they miscarry or the amount paid was higher than the final bill. Up-front payments also create hurdles for women who may want to switch providers if they are unhappy with their care. In some cases, they may cause women to forgo prenatal care altogether, especially in places where few other maternity care options exist. It’s “holding their treatment hostage,” said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation . Medical billing and women’s health experts believe OB-GYN offices adopted the practice to manage the high cost of maternity care and the way it is billed for in the U.S. When a pregnancy ends, OB-GYNs typically file a single insurance claim for routine prenatal care, labor, delivery, and, often, postpartum care. That practice of bundling all maternity care into one billing code began three decades ago, said Lisa Satterfield, senior director of health and payment policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . But such bundled billing has become outdated, she said. Previously, pregnant patients had been subject to copayments for each prenatal visit, which might lead them to skip crucial appointments to save money. But the Affordable Care Act now requires all commercial insurers to fully cover certain prenatal services. Plus, it’s become more common for pregnant women to switch providers, or have different providers handle prenatal care, labor, and delivery — especially in rural areas where patient transfers are common. Some providers say prepayments allow them to spread out one-time payments over the course of the pregnancy to ensure that they are compensated for the care they do provide, even if they don’t ultimately deliver the baby. “You have people who, unfortunately, are not getting paid for the work that they do,” said Pamela Boatner, who works as a midwife in a Georgia hospital. While she believes women should receive pregnancy care regardless of their ability to pay, she also understands that some providers want to make sure their bill isn’t ignored after the baby is delivered. New parents might be overloaded with hospital bills and the costs of caring for a new child, and they may lack income if a parent isn’t working, Boatner said. In the U.S., having a baby can be expensive. People who obtain health insurance through large employers pay an average of nearly $3,000 out-of-pocket for pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker . In addition, many people are opting for high-deductible health insurance plans, leaving them to shoulder a larger share of the costs. Of the 100 million U.S. people with health care debt, 12% attribute at least some of it to maternity care, according to a 2022 KFF poll . Families need time to save money for the high costs of pregnancy, childbirth, and child care, especially if they lack paid maternity leave, said Joy Burkhard , CEO of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, a Los Angeles-based policy think tank. Asking them to prepay “is another gut punch,” she said. “What if you don’t have the money? Do you put it on credit cards and hope your credit card goes through?” Calculating the final costs of childbirth depends on multiple factors, such as the timing of the pregnancy , plan benefits, and health complications, said Erin Duffy , a health policy researcher at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. The final bill for the patient is unclear until a health plan decides how much of the claim it will cover, she said. But sometimes the option to wait for the insurer is taken away. During Jamie Daw’s first pregnancy in 2020, her OB-GYN accepted her refusal to pay in advance because Daw wanted to see the final bill. But in 2023, during her second pregnancy, a private midwifery practice in New York told her that since she had a high-deductible plan, it was mandatory to pay $2,000 spread out with monthly payments. Daw, a health policy researcher at Columbia University, delivered in September 2023 and got a refund check that November for $640 to cover the difference between the estimate and the final bill. “I study health insurance,” she said. “But, as most of us know, it’s so complicated when you’re really living it.” While the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover some prenatal services, it doesn’t prohibit providers from sending their final bill to patients early. It would be a challenge politically and practically for state and federal governments to attempt to regulate the timing of the payment request, said Sabrina Corlette , a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. Medical lobbying groups are powerful and contracts between insurers and medical providers are proprietary. Because of the legal gray area, Lacy Marshall , an insurance broker at Rapha Health and Life in Texas, advises clients to ask their insurer if they can refuse to prepay their deductible. Some insurance plans prohibit providers in their network from requiring payment up front. If the insurer says they can refuse to pay up front, Marshall said, she tells clients to get established with a practice before declining to pay, so that the provider can’t refuse treatment. Related Articles Health | Which health insurance plan may be right for you? Health | Your cool black kitchenware could be slowly poisoning you, study says. Here’s what to do Health | Does fluoride cause cancer, IQ loss, and more? Fact-checking Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims Health | US towns plunge into debates about fluoride in water Health | Older Americans living alone often rely on neighbors or others willing to help Clark said she met her insurance deductible after paying for genetic testing, extra ultrasounds, and other services out of her health care flexible spending account. Then she called her OB-GYN’s office and asked for a refund. “I got my spine back,” said Clark, who had previously worked at a health insurer and a medical office. She got an initial check for about half the $960 she originally paid. In August, Clark was sent to the hospital after her blood pressure spiked. A high-risk pregnancy specialist — not her original OB-GYN practice — delivered her son, Peter, prematurely via emergency cesarean section at 30 weeks. It was only after she resolved most of the bills from the delivery that she received the rest of her refund from the other OB-GYN practice. This final check came in October, just days after Clark brought Peter home from the hospital, and after multiple calls to the office. She said it all added stress to an already stressful period. “Why am I having to pay the price as a patient?” she said. “I’m just trying to have a baby.” ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 35 points and the Oklahoma City Thunder won their 11th straight game, beating the short-handed Memphis Grizzlies 130-106 on Sunday night in a matchup of Western Conference leaders that turned lopsided before halftime. Rookie Ajay Mitchell scored 17 points, Aaron Wiggins contributed 16 and Jalen Williams added 14 points and 10 rebounds for the Thunder (26-5), who opened a five-game lead over second-place Memphis. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings. Get updates and player profiles ahead of Friday's high school games, plus a recap Saturday with stories, photos, video Frequency: Seasonal Twice a week
What are the drones over New Jersey? All the key theories so far from foreign spies to Project Blue BeamRenuka Rayasam | (TNS) KFF Health News In April, just 12 weeks into her pregnancy, Kathleen Clark was standing at the receptionist window of her OB-GYN’s office when she was asked to pay $960, the total the office estimated she would owe after she delivered. Clark, 39, was shocked that she was asked to pay that amount during this second prenatal visit. Normally, patients receive the bill after insurance has paid its part, and for pregnant women that’s usually only when the pregnancy ends. It would be months before the office filed the claim with her health insurer. Clark said she felt stuck. The Cleveland, Tennessee, obstetrics practice was affiliated with a birthing center where she wanted to deliver. Plus, she and her husband had been wanting to have a baby for a long time. And Clark was emotional, because just weeks earlier her mother had died. “You’re standing there at the window, and there’s people all around, and you’re trying to be really nice,” recalled Clark, through tears. “So, I paid it.” On online baby message boards and other social media forums , pregnant women say they are being asked by their providers to pay out-of-pocket fees earlier than expected. The practice is legal, but patient advocacy groups call it unethical. Medical providers argue that asking for payment up front ensures they get compensated for their services. How frequently this happens is hard to track because it is considered a private transaction between the provider and the patient. Therefore, the payments are not recorded in insurance claims data and are not studied by researchers. Patients, medical billing experts, and patient advocates say the billing practice causes unexpected anxiety at a time of already heightened stress and financial pressure. Estimates can sometimes be higher than what a patient might ultimately owe and force people to fight for refunds if they miscarry or the amount paid was higher than the final bill. Up-front payments also create hurdles for women who may want to switch providers if they are unhappy with their care. In some cases, they may cause women to forgo prenatal care altogether, especially in places where few other maternity care options exist. It’s “holding their treatment hostage,” said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation . Medical billing and women’s health experts believe OB-GYN offices adopted the practice to manage the high cost of maternity care and the way it is billed for in the U.S. When a pregnancy ends, OB-GYNs typically file a single insurance claim for routine prenatal care, labor, delivery, and, often, postpartum care. That practice of bundling all maternity care into one billing code began three decades ago, said Lisa Satterfield, senior director of health and payment policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . But such bundled billing has become outdated, she said. Previously, pregnant patients had been subject to copayments for each prenatal visit, which might lead them to skip crucial appointments to save money. But the Affordable Care Act now requires all commercial insurers to fully cover certain prenatal services. Plus, it’s become more common for pregnant women to switch providers, or have different providers handle prenatal care, labor, and delivery — especially in rural areas where patient transfers are common. Some providers say prepayments allow them to spread out one-time payments over the course of the pregnancy to ensure that they are compensated for the care they do provide, even if they don’t ultimately deliver the baby. “You have people who, unfortunately, are not getting paid for the work that they do,” said Pamela Boatner, who works as a midwife in a Georgia hospital. While she believes women should receive pregnancy care regardless of their ability to pay, she also understands that some providers want to make sure their bill isn’t ignored after the baby is delivered. New parents might be overloaded with hospital bills and the costs of caring for a new child, and they may lack income if a parent isn’t working, Boatner said. In the U.S., having a baby can be expensive. People who obtain health insurance through large employers pay an average of nearly $3,000 out-of-pocket for pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker . In addition, many people are opting for high-deductible health insurance plans, leaving them to shoulder a larger share of the costs. Of the 100 million U.S. people with health care debt, 12% attribute at least some of it to maternity care, according to a 2022 KFF poll . Families need time to save money for the high costs of pregnancy, childbirth, and child care, especially if they lack paid maternity leave, said Joy Burkhard , CEO of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, a Los Angeles-based policy think tank. Asking them to prepay “is another gut punch,” she said. “What if you don’t have the money? Do you put it on credit cards and hope your credit card goes through?” Calculating the final costs of childbirth depends on multiple factors, such as the timing of the pregnancy , plan benefits, and health complications, said Erin Duffy , a health policy researcher at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. The final bill for the patient is unclear until a health plan decides how much of the claim it will cover, she said. But sometimes the option to wait for the insurer is taken away. During Jamie Daw’s first pregnancy in 2020, her OB-GYN accepted her refusal to pay in advance because Daw wanted to see the final bill. But in 2023, during her second pregnancy, a private midwifery practice in New York told her that since she had a high-deductible plan, it was mandatory to pay $2,000 spread out with monthly payments. Daw, a health policy researcher at Columbia University, delivered in September 2023 and got a refund check that November for $640 to cover the difference between the estimate and the final bill. “I study health insurance,” she said. “But, as most of us know, it’s so complicated when you’re really living it.” While the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover some prenatal services, it doesn’t prohibit providers from sending their final bill to patients early. It would be a challenge politically and practically for state and federal governments to attempt to regulate the timing of the payment request, said Sabrina Corlette , a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. Medical lobbying groups are powerful and contracts between insurers and medical providers are proprietary. Because of the legal gray area, Lacy Marshall , an insurance broker at Rapha Health and Life in Texas, advises clients to ask their insurer if they can refuse to prepay their deductible. Some insurance plans prohibit providers in their network from requiring payment up front. If the insurer says they can refuse to pay up front, Marshall said, she tells clients to get established with a practice before declining to pay, so that the provider can’t refuse treatment. Related Articles Health | Which health insurance plan may be right for you? Health | California case is the first confirmed bird flu infection in a US child Health | Your cool black kitchenware could be slowly poisoning you, study says. Here’s what to do Health | Does fluoride cause cancer, IQ loss, and more? Fact-checking Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims Health | US towns plunge into debates about fluoride in water Clark said she met her insurance deductible after paying for genetic testing, extra ultrasounds, and other services out of her health care flexible spending account. Then she called her OB-GYN’s office and asked for a refund. “I got my spine back,” said Clark, who had previously worked at a health insurer and a medical office. She got an initial check for about half the $960 she originally paid. In August, Clark was sent to the hospital after her blood pressure spiked. A high-risk pregnancy specialist — not her original OB-GYN practice — delivered her son, Peter, prematurely via emergency cesarean section at 30 weeks. It was only after she resolved most of the bills from the delivery that she received the rest of her refund from the other OB-GYN practice. This final check came in October, just days after Clark brought Peter home from the hospital, and after multiple calls to the office. She said it all added stress to an already stressful period. “Why am I having to pay the price as a patient?” she said. “I’m just trying to have a baby.” ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Lt. Gov. Jon Husted (R) is confident that the common sense bathroom law that Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed into law will withstand legal scrutiny, explaining during an appearance on Breitbart News Saturday that transgender issues were largely “aired out in the public forum of an election.” In November, DeWine signed a bill that prevents transgender students K-12 from using the single-sex facility that corresponds with their gender identity. In other words, students must use the single-sex facility that corresponds with their biological sex — something Husted said is common sense. When asked about the likely legal challenges coming their way, Husted said that Ohio will not be alone in its defense. “We won’t be alone. There’s at least ten other states that have similar laws. And as you also know, there was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week on gender transition surgeries and treatments for children. And hope, I think this will go the same direction that that issue,” he said, explaining that states should be able to regulate these things, emphasizing that it is “not discrimination” but “protecting the rights of individuals.” Further, he said transgender individuals still have options if they do not want to go in the bathroom of their biological sex, as they can use family restrooms. “You can have all those things, but there has to be at least a safe place, a boys’ group bathroom, a girls’ bathroom for them. And I’m confident that this will stand any legal challenge, but this is hard to believe, but these are the issues of our time that we have to undertake to protect people’s rights,” Husted said. “In this case, it’s the right to privacy for girls and women to have a safe place to go to the bathroom or use locker rooms.” Husted also discussed how this issue played a significant role in the presidential election. “The issues that were talked about were inflation, securing the border, and we all remember the ad that Donald Trump is for you and Kamala Harris is for they/them, right? I mean, everyone follows that. It was a front and center issue in the election, and the voters sided with you, not they/them,” Husted said. “That’s how it happened”: Further, Husted stressed that this position is not “anti-transgender.” “If you’re an adult in America, the land of the free and home of the brave, and you want to be transgender or identify however you want to identify, you’re allowed to do that. No one’s taking away your right to do that. But what we are saying is that boys play boys’ sports. Girls play girls’ sports. We have girls’ bathrooms, we have girls locker rooms, and those are going to be safe places,” he said, adding, “We want to have safe places for our women and girls, and I think that that is what was aired out in the public forum of an election.” LISTEN: “You will continue to see more laws like this passed, and I think you will see the courts uphold this,” he added. Breitbart News Saturday airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern.