 |  |  |  |  |
Hoosick Falls, New York 12090
Salem, New York 12865
Cambridge, New York 12816
Greenwich, New York 12834
Saratoga Springs, New York
Schuylerville, New York
Bennington, Vermont
Arlington, Vermont
Manchester, Vermont
Hubbard Hall
Glens Falls National Bank
Washington County, New York
Rensselaer County, New York
Agriculture, Farms, Church, Christian, Religion, Hunting, Deer, Fantasy Football, Fantasy Sports, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB,
Theater,14 South Park Street
Cambridge, NY 12816
P: (518) 677-5158
F: (518) 677-8323
Salem, New York 12865
Cambridge, New York 12816
Greenwich, New York 12834
Saratoga Springs, New York
Schuylerville, New York
Bennington, Vermont
Arlington, Vermont
Manchester, Vermont
Hubbard Hall
Glens Falls National Bank
Washington County, New York
Rensselaer County, New York
Agriculture, Farms, Church, Christian, Religion, Hunting, Deer, Fantasy Football, Fantasy Sports, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB,
Theater,14 South Park Street
Cambridge, NY 12816
P: (518) 677-5158
F: (518) 677-8323
The Eagle Newspaper
Your Community - Your News
Your Community - Your News
| 14a South Park Street Cambridge, NY 12816 P: (518) 677-5158 F: (518) 677-8323 |
| Publication Info |
Office Location 14 South Park Street, Cambridge
Circulation 4600 weekly, published Thursday
Page Size 10.25 inches x 14 inches
Printing Technique Web Press
Average Page Count 40 pages
Color Capabilities 4 color process
Newsstand Price $0.75
Subscriptions Per Year by U.S. Mail (NY) $36
Subscriptions Per Year by U.S. Mail (Outside NY) $38
Official Legal Newspaper of:
The Eagle is read by an estimated audience of more
than 20,000 readers in Washington, Rensselaer and
Saratoga Counties, nearby Vermont and in other
areas throughout the United States.
Circulation 4600 weekly, published Thursday
Page Size 10.25 inches x 14 inches
Printing Technique Web Press
Average Page Count 40 pages
Color Capabilities 4 color process
Newsstand Price $0.75
Subscriptions Per Year by U.S. Mail (NY) $36
Subscriptions Per Year by U.S. Mail (Outside NY) $38
Official Legal Newspaper of:
The Eagle is read by an estimated audience of more
than 20,000 readers in Washington, Rensselaer and
Saratoga Counties, nearby Vermont and in other
areas throughout the United States.
PDF File Adobe Acrobat required
PDF File Adobe Acrobat required
Classified ads must be submitted in
writing and prepaid. To place your ad
in The Eagle, mail the above form to :
The Eagle, P.O.Box 493, Cambridge,
NY 12816 Deadline is the Monday
before publication by 5 p.m.
writing and prepaid. To place your ad
in The Eagle, mail the above form to :
The Eagle, P.O.Box 493, Cambridge,
NY 12816 Deadline is the Monday
before publication by 5 p.m.
The Towns of Cambridge, Easton, Greenwich, Jackson, Salem and White Creek The Villages of Cambridge and Salem The School Districts of Cambridge, Greenwich, and Salem and Washington County, New York |
 |
 |
Bankruptcy Counseling
MMI has been approved by the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees to issue counseling certificates in compliance with the bankruptcy code. *
Money Management International has a team of trained counselors who will work one-on-one with you to create a detailed personal financial assessment. During the assessment, the counselor will work with you to analyze your income, expenses, assets and liabilities and provide the client with a true and accurate picture of your financial situation.
You will be taken through all of the components of a typical credit counseling session. Upon completion of the bankruptcy counseling session, you will be issued a certificate of participation. This certificate will allow you to proceed with the bankruptcy process. It is our desire to make this delivery process as smooth and efficient as possible.
Start online counseling now or call 877-918-2227 to schedule an in-person or telephone counseling session.
Attorneys learn how MMI can help your clients.
The fee for the pre-filing bankruptcy counseling session by one of our professional credit counselors is $50.00. The $50.00 fee is good for either a single filer or joint filers if both attend the same session. Money Management International will waive the bankruptcy pre-filing counseling fee for debtors whose household income is equal to or less than 150% of the estimated poverty threshold for
their applicable family size as published in the current Federal Poverty Levels Guidelines. If you feel your income is within these guidelines, please call 877-918-2227 for more information.
MMI has been approved by the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees to issue counseling certificates in compliance with the bankruptcy code. *
Money Management International has a team of trained counselors who will work one-on-one with you to create a detailed personal financial assessment. During the assessment, the counselor will work with you to analyze your income, expenses, assets and liabilities and provide the client with a true and accurate picture of your financial situation.
You will be taken through all of the components of a typical credit counseling session. Upon completion of the bankruptcy counseling session, you will be issued a certificate of participation. This certificate will allow you to proceed with the bankruptcy process. It is our desire to make this delivery process as smooth and efficient as possible.
Start online counseling now or call 877-918-2227 to schedule an in-person or telephone counseling session.
Attorneys learn how MMI can help your clients.
The fee for the pre-filing bankruptcy counseling session by one of our professional credit counselors is $50.00. The $50.00 fee is good for either a single filer or joint filers if both attend the same session. Money Management International will waive the bankruptcy pre-filing counseling fee for debtors whose household income is equal to or less than 150% of the estimated poverty threshold for
their applicable family size as published in the current Federal Poverty Levels Guidelines. If you feel your income is within these guidelines, please call 877-918-2227 for more information.
As the 110th Congress convenes, there’s no end to the handwringing over prescription drug prices, particularly among Democratic leaders, who are now clamoring to impose price-controls on the pharmaceutical industry. But can our politicians use the power of the state to lower the price of drugs without doing more harm than good?
The answer is a resounding “no.”
Every year, we hear that prescription drugs are eating up a greater share of health care spending. Having hovered between 5 and 8 percent of overall health costs for about 20 years until the mid-1990s, pharmaceutical spending has steadily climbed past 10 percent over the last decade. Critics often point to this as proof that “something” needs to be done – but the measurement is meaningless.
First, the percentage of overall healthcare expenditures spent on prescription drugs is simply a ratio, which we shouldn’t expect to remain constant.
For example, if we were to look at the history of artificial light in the United States, wood, oil, and candles would account for virtually all spending until the last quarter of the 19th century, when electricity quickly rose from zero to virtually 100 percent.
If turn-of-the-century politicians had insisted that only 8 percent of total artificial light expenditures be allocated to electricity, we’d be living in the dark today.
Second, identifying prescription drugs as a percent-component of health care spending tells us nothing about how that spending contributes to our health. So we cannot judge whether the money is well spent.
For instance, a person with high cholesterol may be admitted to the hospital for acute treatment of coronary heart disease, where a stent is installed to open his arteries, and a daily cholesterol-lowering drug is prescribed. If the drug accounted for 15 percent of his total health care expenses, does that mean that the money could have been better spent on additional X-rays?
Of course not. It would be unethical, if not criminal, for a doctor to focus exclusively on reducing drug costs. In fact, expensive prescription medicines often substitute for even more expensive hospital interventions. Looking at data from 1996 through 1998, Columbia University’s Frank Lichtenberg found that people who use newer prescription drugs are healthier – and live longer – than those using older cheaper drugs for the same condition.
Yet prescription drugs are such an easy target for the nation’s politicians because of Medicaid. As the nation’s largest health care program, Medicaid cares for nearly 60 million beneficiaries and spends more than $30 billion dollars on drugs each year.
But given Lichtenberg’s conclusions, concern over Medicaid’s costs ought to focus on whether it is spending enough on prescription drugs. In the private sector, prescription costs make up a somewhat higher share of health costs than in Medicaid – and those payers have better incentives to decide price and quality.
Barring best-in-class drugs is penny wise, pound foolish. Pharmacy benefit managers in the private sector recognize this. That’s why they’re far more willing to “pay up” for costly prescriptions. They recognize that it’s cheaper to keep people healthy and out of the hospital. Indeed, today’s largest private health insurer doesn’t use preferred drug lists.
Unfortunately, state Medicaid directors have done just the opposite. In a misguided attempt to save money, they’ve relied on preferred drug lists to limit a physician’s ability to prescribe newer drugs. In recent years, these lists have become progressively more restrictive. In an increasing number of states, restrictive lists prohibit doctors from prescribing innovative drugs that keep health costs down by making them try other drugs first, jumping through hoops, and getting permission from government agents for each prescription.
Ironically, the government created the drug-price problem in the first place by mandating that drug makers give steep discounts to – surprise, surprise – the government.
Bizarre pharmaceutical pricing rules instituted over a decade ago, which were designed to give government programs the best prices, have caused prices to go up for the rest of us. Price controls have distorted the drug market, just as they would distort any other industry. It is actually illegal for drug makers to give discounts to uninsured patients without the state’s permission. Instead of creating competition, the government’s pharmaceutical price regime has only created confusion and conflict that does nothing for patients.
Furthermore, the University of Connecticut’s Center for Healthcare and Insurance Studies found that, since 1960, government intrusion in drug pricing has slowed down spending on research and development by $188 billion. The unseen cost of this government interference has been a loss of 140 million life years due to “undeveloped” medicines that would have resulted from lost R&D money.
Unfortunately, our nation’s lawmakers have found that it’s easier to grandstand about high pharmaceutical prices than grapple with the fact that government price regulations are one of the causes.
So what have they really accomplished?
For drug manufacturers – less incentive for research and development. For us – worse health outcomes.
Politicians may be able to score votes by railing against high drug prices, but their demagoguery carries real consequences.
The answer is a resounding “no.”
Every year, we hear that prescription drugs are eating up a greater share of health care spending. Having hovered between 5 and 8 percent of overall health costs for about 20 years until the mid-1990s, pharmaceutical spending has steadily climbed past 10 percent over the last decade. Critics often point to this as proof that “something” needs to be done – but the measurement is meaningless.
First, the percentage of overall healthcare expenditures spent on prescription drugs is simply a ratio, which we shouldn’t expect to remain constant.
For example, if we were to look at the history of artificial light in the United States, wood, oil, and candles would account for virtually all spending until the last quarter of the 19th century, when electricity quickly rose from zero to virtually 100 percent.
If turn-of-the-century politicians had insisted that only 8 percent of total artificial light expenditures be allocated to electricity, we’d be living in the dark today.
Second, identifying prescription drugs as a percent-component of health care spending tells us nothing about how that spending contributes to our health. So we cannot judge whether the money is well spent.
For instance, a person with high cholesterol may be admitted to the hospital for acute treatment of coronary heart disease, where a stent is installed to open his arteries, and a daily cholesterol-lowering drug is prescribed. If the drug accounted for 15 percent of his total health care expenses, does that mean that the money could have been better spent on additional X-rays?
Of course not. It would be unethical, if not criminal, for a doctor to focus exclusively on reducing drug costs. In fact, expensive prescription medicines often substitute for even more expensive hospital interventions. Looking at data from 1996 through 1998, Columbia University’s Frank Lichtenberg found that people who use newer prescription drugs are healthier – and live longer – than those using older cheaper drugs for the same condition.
Yet prescription drugs are such an easy target for the nation’s politicians because of Medicaid. As the nation’s largest health care program, Medicaid cares for nearly 60 million beneficiaries and spends more than $30 billion dollars on drugs each year.
But given Lichtenberg’s conclusions, concern over Medicaid’s costs ought to focus on whether it is spending enough on prescription drugs. In the private sector, prescription costs make up a somewhat higher share of health costs than in Medicaid – and those payers have better incentives to decide price and quality.
Barring best-in-class drugs is penny wise, pound foolish. Pharmacy benefit managers in the private sector recognize this. That’s why they’re far more willing to “pay up” for costly prescriptions. They recognize that it’s cheaper to keep people healthy and out of the hospital. Indeed, today’s largest private health insurer doesn’t use preferred drug lists.
Unfortunately, state Medicaid directors have done just the opposite. In a misguided attempt to save money, they’ve relied on preferred drug lists to limit a physician’s ability to prescribe newer drugs. In recent years, these lists have become progressively more restrictive. In an increasing number of states, restrictive lists prohibit doctors from prescribing innovative drugs that keep health costs down by making them try other drugs first, jumping through hoops, and getting permission from government agents for each prescription.
Ironically, the government created the drug-price problem in the first place by mandating that drug makers give steep discounts to – surprise, surprise – the government.
Bizarre pharmaceutical pricing rules instituted over a decade ago, which were designed to give government programs the best prices, have caused prices to go up for the rest of us. Price controls have distorted the drug market, just as they would distort any other industry. It is actually illegal for drug makers to give discounts to uninsured patients without the state’s permission. Instead of creating competition, the government’s pharmaceutical price regime has only created confusion and conflict that does nothing for patients.
Furthermore, the University of Connecticut’s Center for Healthcare and Insurance Studies found that, since 1960, government intrusion in drug pricing has slowed down spending on research and development by $188 billion. The unseen cost of this government interference has been a loss of 140 million life years due to “undeveloped” medicines that would have resulted from lost R&D money.
Unfortunately, our nation’s lawmakers have found that it’s easier to grandstand about high pharmaceutical prices than grapple with the fact that government price regulations are one of the causes.
So what have they really accomplished?
For drug manufacturers – less incentive for research and development. For us – worse health outcomes.
Politicians may be able to score votes by railing against high drug prices, but their demagoguery carries real consequences.
PDF File Adobe Acrobat required