ACA Round-Up: A Double-Threat Presidential Tweet, Cassidy-Graham-Heller, Bipartisan Market Stabilization Ideas, And Good News From Ohio

Although the high drama of the Senate debate on repeal of the Affordable Care Act seems to be over for the time being, health care reform remains in the headlines.

Trump’s Threats Regarding Congressional Coverage And Cost-Sharing Reduction Insurer Reimbursements

On July 29, 2017, President Trump tweeted, “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” This tweet carries a double threat: to end the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments that insurance companies receive to reimburse them for reducing cost sharing for low-income enrollees, and to stop Office of Personnel Management payments for members of Congress and their personal staff. White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway reinforced President Trump’s threat by saying on Fox News on the 30th that the President would decide within the week whether the cost-sharing reductions would continue.

CSR Payments

Any Health Affairs Blog reader is intimately familiar with the CSR issue. The ACA requires insurers to reduce cost-sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and out-of-pocket limits) dramatically for individuals with incomes between 100 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level. About 6 million Americans receive cost-sharing reductions. Many see their deductibles effectively eliminated. The ACA requires the federal government to reimburse insurers for these CSRs, and government has been making monthly payments to the insurers for doing so. It is expected to pay about $7 billion for the CSRs this year.

The House of Representatives sued in 2014, claiming that this reimbursement was illegal because Congress had not appropriated money for the CSR payments. A district court agreed with the House and enjoined the payments in 2016, but stayed its order pending an appeal. The Obama administration filed an appellate brief arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit by the House of Representatives, but also that there was in fact an appropriation to cover the CSRs.

The House asked for a delay in filing its responsive brief, and then, when Trump became President, asked for further delays while it conducted negotiations with the Trump administration. Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia have asked to intervene in the lawsuit to protect the subsidies, but the court has not yet ruled on their petition.

The question before the court continues to be whether there is an appropriation for the CSRs. If there is, then the President cannot legally refuse payment of the money. If the administration is advised by its lawyers that the funds have not been appropriated, contrary to the position of the Obama administration, the administration could so inform the court and stop paying the money. The states would presumably continue to argue that the funds have been appropriated, if they are allowed to do so. Insurers, the states, or consumers might also file a new lawsuit to compel payment of the CSRs.

The contract that insurers have signed with the federal marketplace arguably gives them the right to withdraw if the payments are cut off. The insurers cannot terminate policies, however, only participation in the exchange. Also, insurers would have to give notice under state law to withdraw, probably 90 days. If payments are terminated this late in the year, insurers might decide it was not worth the trouble of withdrawing unless they were forced to for solvency reasons or decided to leave the market for good (in which case they might have to give 180 days’ notice).

The most likely response of insurers would be to either raise premiums dramatically for 2018—probably by 20 percent above premium increases they have otherwise planned—or to not return to the market for 2018. Premium increases would be greater in states that have not expanded Medicaid, because they have a higher proportion of exchange enrollees who qualify for premium tax credits. In states that permitted it, the insurers would load the entire increase on silver plan premiums. This would raise the benchmark and dramatically increase federal expenditures on premium tax credits. It is estimated that ending the CSR payments would increase federal expenditures by $2.3 billion for 2018 and $31 billon over 10 years.

Moreover, people in the individual market who do not qualify for premium tax credits—many of them the farmers, ranchers, and small business people who elected Donald Trump—are likely to face dramatically higher premiums. The healthier among them may drop their coverage, but those who are not able to may not be happy about the change.

FEHB Payments For Legislators And Their Staffs

The second threat is to end FEHB payments for members of Congress and Congressional staffers. The ACA provides that “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff” are ACA exchange plans. The requirement that members of Congress purchase coverage through the exchange was included in the ACA because of a political gambit offered by an opponent of the law, Charles Grassley. Reportedly, Senator Grassley, intending to embarrass Democratic supporters of the law, offered an amendment requiring members of Congress to purchase coverage through the same exchanges through which many of their constituents would be purchasing coverage. Democrats, however, embraced the idea and added it to the ACA. Members of Congress and their staff are the only Americans required to get their coverage through the ACA marketplaces.

The intent of Congress as to how coverage would be paid for was clear all along. Members of Congress are federal employees and Congressional coverage is paid for in the same way coverage for other federal employees is funded — through the federal Office of Personnel Management. The payment is no more a “bailout” than are the payments that President Trump and his staff receive as federal employees.

This was recognized in a rule promulgated by OPM in 2013. If the current administration believes that this rule is in error, it would need to promulgate an amended rule through notice and comment rulemaking, which would take months. It is hard to believe, however, that a rule cutting off OPM payments for members of Congress and their staff would be legally defensible in lawsuits that would surely follow.

In a third development, Republican Senators Cassidy (LA), Graham (SC), and Heller (NV) continue to push their proposal for ACA repeal. The senators met with President Trump on July 28, while Senator Cassidy met with Secretary Price and several state governors on July 31. The Graham-Cassidy-Heller amendment builds on the original Better Care Reconciliation Act. Like the BCRA, it defunds Planned Parenthood for a year, prohibits tax credits for plans that cover abortions, provides for small business association health plans, expands 1332 waiver authority (considerably), defunds the prevention and public health fund after 2018, and repeals a number of ACA taxes and limitations on tax preferences (not including the Medicare surcharge and unearned income tax for high income taxpayers). It also includes per capita caps for Medicaid with a block grant alternative. Whether some of the included provisions could be included in a reconciliation bill has been called into question by the Senate Parliamentarian, and they might well be subject to a point of order objection before they were enacted into law.

The primary innovation of Cassidy-Graham-Heller is that it would end premium tax credits, cost-sharing reduction payments, and enhanced Medicaid expansion funding by 2020, and offer in their stead block grants, which could be used to provide coverage, stabilize markets, reduce cost-sharing, and provide wraparound coverage for persons in the expansion group. These grants would begin at about $140 billion in 2020 and increase by $3 billion each year through 2026. Although the CBO has not analyzed the bill, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports that the block grant would begin in 2020 at 16 percent or $26 billion below current projected funding levels, and end in 2026 at $83 billion or 34 percent below current projected levels.

Grants would be distributed according to complicated formulas that take into account factors including income, age, population density, and Medicaid expansion population. Clearly there would be winners and losers under these formulas. The CBPP reports that the formula would move money away from states that have expanded coverage to those that have not. States would have to match federal grants, beginning with a 3 percent match in 2020 which would grow to 5 percent in 2026, which will likely discourage some states from applying.

While the concept of the Cassidy-Graham-Heller bill might prove attractive to those in Congress and elsewhere who would like to move authority and funding to the states, it is difficult to see how it would be possible for each state to implement its own subsidy program by 2020. It is also likely that, even leaving aside the matching money explicitly required by the bill, states would end up with far less money than they would need to continue current coverage levels. It is not obvious why Cassidy-Graham-Heller should prove more attractive than other proposals that were rejected during the recent Senate debate.

Bipartisan House Group Offers Market Stabilization Agenda

On the House side, a group of about 43 centrist Republicans and Democrats calling themselves the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have reached consensus on a list of proposals for stabilizing the health care industry. Their ideas include:

• A mandatory appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments,
• A state stability fund,
• Raising the threshold for application of the employer mandate from 50 employees to 500, and for full-time work from 30 to 40 hours,
• Repealing the medical device tax, and
• Providing technical changes and clearer guidelines for 1332 state innovation waivers and for section 1333, which allows states to enter into Health Care Choice Compacts allowing the sale of insurance across state lines.

The bipartisan group says that it continues to discuss recapturing premium tax credit overpayments (which are already recaptured, subject to caps for low-income recipients); encouraging the use of generic drugs for Medicare Part D; speeding up brand drug discounts for Medicare beneficiaries in the doughnut hole; creating Medicare bundled payments for post-acute care; reducing Medicare payments for bad debt; and accelerating competitive bidding for Medicare Advantage.

The House is now on summer recess and will remain there through August. When it returns, looking for bipartisan consensus might be a good place to start moving forward on health reform. Partisanship does not seem to have succeeded.

All But One Ohio ‘Bare’ County Covered

Finally, some good news. The Ohio Department of Insurance announced on July 31 that 19 of the 20 ‘bare’ counties (counties without any insurers on the exchange) in Ohio are now covered for 2018. Nationally, there now remain only 19 counties—14 in Nevada, 4 in Indiana, and 1 in Ohio—with a total of 15,000 residents without an insurer available on the exchange for 2018.

from Health Affairs BlogHealth Affairs Blog http://ift.tt/2wfDmIE

ACA Round-Up: A Double-Threat Presidential Tweet, Cassidy-Graham-Heller, Bipartisan Market Stabilization Ideas, And Good News From Ohio

Although the high drama of the Senate debate on repeal of the Affordable Care Act seems to be over for the time being, health care reform remains in the headlines.

Trump's Threats Regarding Congressional Coverage And Cost-Sharing Reduction Insurer Reimbursements

On July 29, 2017, President Trump tweeted, "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!" This tweet carries a double threat: to end the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments that insurance companies receive to reimburse them for reducing cost sharing for low-income enrollees, and to stop Office of Personnel Management payments for members of Congress and their personal staff. White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway reinforced President Trump's threat by saying on Fox News on the 30th that the President would decide within the week whether the cost-sharing reductions would continue.

CSR Payments

Any Health Affairs Blog reader is intimately familiar with the CSR issue. The ACA requires insurers to reduce cost-sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and out-of-pocket limits) dramatically for individuals with incomes between 100 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level. About 6 million Americans receive cost-sharing reductions. Many see their deductibles effectively eliminated. The ACA requires the federal government to reimburse insurers for these CSRs, and government has been making monthly payments to the insurers for doing so. It is expected to pay about $7 billion for the CSRs this year.

The House of Representatives sued in 2014, claiming that this reimbursement was illegal because Congress had not appropriated money for the CSR payments. A district court agreed with the House and enjoined the payments in 2016, but stayed its order pending an appeal. The Obama administration filed an appellate brief arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit by the House of Representatives, but also that there was in fact an appropriation to cover the CSRs.

The House asked for a delay in filing its responsive brief, and then, when Trump became President, asked for further delays while it conducted negotiations with the Trump administration. Attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia have asked to intervene in the lawsuit to protect the subsidies, but the court has not yet ruled on their petition.

The question before the court continues to be whether there is an appropriation for the CSRs. If there is, then the President cannot legally refuse payment of the money. If the administration is advised by its lawyers that the funds have not been appropriated, contrary to the position of the Obama administration, the administration could so inform the court and stop paying the money. The states would presumably continue to argue that the funds have been appropriated, if they are allowed to do so. Insurers, the states, or consumers might also file a new lawsuit to compel payment of the CSRs.

The contract that insurers have signed with the federal marketplace arguably gives them the right to withdraw if the payments are cut off. The insurers cannot terminate policies, however, only participation in the exchange. Also, insurers would have to give notice under state law to withdraw, probably 90 days. If payments are terminated this late in the year, insurers might decide it was not worth the trouble of withdrawing unless they were forced to for solvency reasons or decided to leave the market for good (in which case they might have to give 180 days' notice).

The most likely response of insurers would be to either raise premiums dramatically for 2018—probably by 20 percent above premium increases they have otherwise planned—or to not return to the market for 2018. Premium increases would be greater in states that have not expanded Medicaid, because they have a higher proportion of exchange enrollees who qualify for premium tax credits. In states that permitted it, the insurers would load the entire increase on silver plan premiums. This would raise the benchmark and dramatically increase federal expenditures on premium tax credits. It is estimated that ending the CSR payments would increase federal expenditures by $2.3 billion for 2018 and $31 billon over 10 years.

Moreover, people in the individual market who do not qualify for premium tax credits—many of them the farmers, ranchers, and small business people who elected Donald Trump—are likely to face dramatically higher premiums. The healthier among them may drop their coverage, but those who are not able to may not be happy about the change.

FEHB Payments For Legislators And Their Staffs

The second threat is to end FEHB payments for members of Congress and Congressional staffers. The ACA provides that "the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff" are ACA exchange plans. The requirement that members of Congress purchase coverage through the exchange was included in the ACA because of a political gambit offered by an opponent of the law, Charles Grassley. Reportedly, Senator Grassley, intending to embarrass Democratic supporters of the law, offered an amendment requiring members of Congress to purchase coverage through the same exchanges through which many of their constituents would be purchasing coverage. Democrats, however, embraced the idea and added it to the ACA. Members of Congress and their staff are the only Americans required to get their coverage through the ACA marketplaces.

The intent of Congress as to how coverage would be paid for was clear all along. Members of Congress are federal employees and Congressional coverage is paid for in the same way coverage for other federal employees is funded — through the federal Office of Personnel Management. The payment is no more a "bailout" than are the payments that President Trump and his staff receive as federal employees.

This was recognized in a rule promulgated by OPM in 2013. If the current administration believes that this rule is in error, it would need to promulgate an amended rule through notice and comment rulemaking, which would take months. It is hard to believe, however, that a rule cutting off OPM payments for members of Congress and their staff would be legally defensible in lawsuits that would surely follow.

In a third development, Republican Senators Cassidy (LA), Graham (SC), and Heller (NV) continue to push their proposal for ACA repeal. The senators met with President Trump on July 28, while Senator Cassidy met with Secretary Price and several state governors on July 31. The Graham-Cassidy-Heller amendment builds on the original Better Care Reconciliation Act. Like the BCRA, it defunds Planned Parenthood for a year, prohibits tax credits for plans that cover abortions, provides for small business association health plans, expands 1332 waiver authority (considerably), defunds the prevention and public health fund after 2018, and repeals a number of ACA taxes and limitations on tax preferences (not including the Medicare surcharge and unearned income tax for high income taxpayers). It also includes per capita caps for Medicaid with a block grant alternative. Whether some of the included provisions could be included in a reconciliation bill has been called into question by the Senate Parliamentarian, and they might well be subject to a point of order objection before they were enacted into law.

The primary innovation of Cassidy-Graham-Heller is that it would end premium tax credits, cost-sharing reduction payments, and enhanced Medicaid expansion funding by 2020, and offer in their stead block grants, which could be used to provide coverage, stabilize markets, reduce cost-sharing, and provide wraparound coverage for persons in the expansion group. These grants would begin at about $140 billion in 2020 and increase by $3 billion each year through 2026. Although the CBO has not analyzed the bill, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reports that the block grant would begin in 2020 at 16 percent or $26 billion below current projected funding levels, and end in 2026 at $83 billion or 34 percent below current projected levels.

Grants would be distributed according to complicated formulas that take into account factors including income, age, population density, and Medicaid expansion population. Clearly there would be winners and losers under these formulas. The CBPP reports that the formula would move money away from states that have expanded coverage to those that have not. States would have to match federal grants, beginning with a 3 percent match in 2020 which would grow to 5 percent in 2026, which will likely discourage some states from applying.

While the concept of the Cassidy-Graham-Heller bill might prove attractive to those in Congress and elsewhere who would like to move authority and funding to the states, it is difficult to see how it would be possible for each state to implement its own subsidy program by 2020. It is also likely that, even leaving aside the matching money explicitly required by the bill, states would end up with far less money than they would need to continue current coverage levels. It is not obvious why Cassidy-Graham-Heller should prove more attractive than other proposals that were rejected during the recent Senate debate.

Bipartisan House Group Offers Market Stabilization Agenda

On the House side, a group of about 43 centrist Republicans and Democrats calling themselves the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have reached consensus on a list of proposals for stabilizing the health care industry. Their ideas include:

• A mandatory appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments,
• A state stability fund,
• Raising the threshold for application of the employer mandate from 50 employees to 500, and for full-time work from 30 to 40 hours,
• Repealing the medical device tax, and
• Providing technical changes and clearer guidelines for 1332 state innovation waivers and for section 1333, which allows states to enter into Health Care Choice Compacts allowing the sale of insurance across state lines.

The bipartisan group says that it continues to discuss recapturing premium tax credit overpayments (which are already recaptured, subject to caps for low-income recipients); encouraging the use of generic drugs for Medicare Part D; speeding up brand drug discounts for Medicare beneficiaries in the doughnut hole; creating Medicare bundled payments for post-acute care; reducing Medicare payments for bad debt; and accelerating competitive bidding for Medicare Advantage.

The House is now on summer recess and will remain there through August. When it returns, looking for bipartisan consensus might be a good place to start moving forward on health reform. Partisanship does not seem to have succeeded.

All But One Ohio 'Bare' County Covered

Finally, some good news. The Ohio Department of Insurance announced on July 31 that 19 of the 20 'bare' counties (counties without any insurers on the exchange) in Ohio are now covered for 2018. Nationally, there now remain only 19 counties—14 in Nevada, 4 in Indiana, and 1 in Ohio—with a total of 15,000 residents without an insurer available on the exchange for 2018.

from Health Affairs BlogHealth Affairs Blog http://ift.tt/2wfDmIE

2nd + Main by Create Properties in Mount Pleasant

On the corner of 2nd and Main Street is the new 226 residence building composed of 23 studios, 145 1-bedrooms, and 58 2-bedrooms. Vancouver based, Create Properties brings a unique vibe to their properties where you can live, work and play. This development will feature: a green roof for residents with garden plots and storage for gardening supplies, electric vehicle charging stations, four artist studios, bicycle stalls, 13000 square feet of retail space, and culture space.

This fabulous development is situated within walking distance to the Olympic Village, close to breweries and dining spots.

The post 2nd + Main by Create Properties in Mount Pleasant appeared first on Vancouver New Condos.

from Buildings – Vancouver New Condos http://ift.tt/2hhl3jq

2nd + Main by Create Properties in Mount Pleasant

On the corner of 2nd and Main Street is the new 226 residence building composed of 23 studios, 145 1-bedrooms, and 58 2-bedrooms. Vancouver based, Create Properties brings a unique vibe to their properties where you can live, work and play. This development will feature: a green roof for residents with garden plots and storage for gardening supplies, electric vehicle charging stations, four artist studios, bicycle stalls, 13000 square feet of retail space, and culture space.

This fabulous development is situated within walking distance to the Olympic Village, close to breweries and dining spots.

The post 2nd + Main by Create Properties in Mount Pleasant appeared first on Vancouver New Condos.

from Buildings – Vancouver New Condos http://ift.tt/2hhl3jq

Outside Of Washington, There Is A New Vital Center In Health Care Reform

Republicans in Congress are mired in political quicksand. Following passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, they locked themselves into a promise to repeal and replace it at the behest of ultra-conservative donors and party activists who control the GOP’s nomination process. Since 2010, however, Americans and rank-and-file Republicans increasingly came to expect help meeting the rising costs of medical care and insurance and to accept the ACA’s tangible programs to address these concrete challenges.

The Democrats created their own political trap. They passed the ACA on the promise of making health care affordable but deductibles and rising premiums continued to present a burden to many Americans.

Both parties are missing, however, the vital center on health reform that has formed since 2010. Americans are frustrated with Democrats for not delivering on their promise of affordability, and they are now alarmed with Republican efforts to repeal—instead of improve—the ACA’s coverage of costs.

Tracking Changes In Public Opinion

Most public opinion polls are unable to track these changes in opinion about health care because they are only snapshots, drawn from a moment in time. To remedy this, we have been gathering panel data, tracking the views of the same group of Americans every two years since the ACA’s passage in 2010. This equips us to study how individuals respond to the ACA as they experience or learn more about the law’s provisions over time. Specifically, we conducted four waves of interviews in the two-month period leading up to national elections from 2010 to 2016 when health reform received heightened attention; this avoided the risk of choosing an arbitrary month when health reform might have arbitrarily lost or gained salience.

The first wave was conducted by the Survey Research Institute (SRI) at Cornell University and consisted of a national sample of 1,200 adults. Abt SRBI (now part of Abt Associates) conducted the last three waves, returning to the same individuals. All waves asked identical questions and were administered by telephone, using only landlines in 2010 and adding mobile phones in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Forty-nine percent of the original 2010 survey (587 individuals) responded to all four waves. Survey weights were applied to each survey to match representative demographic targets and allow us to generalize from our panel to the adult population in the United States.

Why Americans Dislike Health Reform

Republicans have been eager to highlight the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” Exhibit 1 shows that unfavorable assessments of the ACA have steadily increased since its passage. Unfavorability rose from 44 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2016.

Exhibit 1: Increasingly Unfavorable Views Of The Affordable Care Act (percent)

Question: “As you may know, a major health care bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about this law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it, or do you have a neutral opinion, neither favorable nor unfavorable?” Exhibit 1 presents the “unfavorable” responses.

Why are Americans increasingly disenchanted with the ACA? The public’s displeasure emanates to a large extent from frustrations with health care costs. Democrats promised to lower the costs of medical care and insurance with the enactment of the ACA. They did succeed to slow the rate of increase in national health care spending and insulate most subsidized enrollees in its insurance Marketplace from premium increases, as the Congressional Budget Office reports (Note 1). Yet, the costs of medical care remain high, and premiums and deductibles are out of the reach of some Americans.

The source of the public’s rising frustration with health care costs is picked up in Exhibit 2. The first grouping of bars on the left shows increasing frustration with costs for medical treatments that are not covered by insurers. By 2016, 14 percent expressed dissatisfaction with the amount and number of treatments that their insurance covered, a 6-point increase from 2014. One-third of Americans also expressed dissatisfaction in 2016 with the out-of-pocket costs that they were forced to pay because of gaps in their insurance coverage, as shown in the middle cluster. This is an 8-point increase from 2014.

Exhibit 2: Rising Concerns About Affordability (percent)

Question: Several questions asked respondents to indicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with individual features of the health care system—“The number and kind of treatments your health insurance will cover” and “The amount you spend out of pocket on health care costs your insurance doesn’t cover.” A separate item asked respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement: “Public officials care about making health care more affordable for people like me.” (Exhibit 2 shows “disagreement” with the statement.)

The public’s disappointment with the persistent burden of health care costs leads it to blame lawmakers for a lack of responsiveness. The bars on the right in Exhibit 2 indicate that a growing majority of Americans disagree with the statement that, “Public officials care about making health care more affordable for people like me.” Fifty-eight percent of Americans disagreed with this statement in 2016, a 10-point increase since 2012.

In addition, the sense that the ACA has not delivered the affordability that Democrats promised may help account for the sharply stronger conclusion in recent years that the ACA’s taxes present a heavier burden. Exhibit 3 shows that the proportion of Americans who believe that their taxes have increased a lot or a little has risen from 43 percent in 2012 to 56 percent in 2016. This growing perception that the ACA has increased taxes rests on inaccurate assumptions. The ACA’s financing primarily relies on two taxes on individuals whose yearly income exceeds $200,000 or for married couples earning more than $250,000—an increase in Medicare’s tax on earnings by 0.9 percent and a new 3.8 percent tax on capital gains from investments. These taxes fall on less than 2 percent of tax filers, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (Note 2).

Exhibit 3: Growing Perception That The Affordable Care Act Increased Taxes (percent)

Question: “Do you think that the new health care law enacted in 2010 has increased the taxes that you pay, decreased the taxes that you pay, or has it had no impact on the taxes that you pay?”

Americans Oppose Repeal Because They Appreciate The Effects Of Health Reform

Considering the strong public disapproval of repeal, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are discovering that it is a mistake to equate the public’s frustrations with the ACA with support for repealing its programs. When respondents reported “unfavorable” views of the law, we followed up with a question asking them whether they would prefer either “repeal[ing] [the ACA] as soon as possible,” or “giving the law more time to have a chance to work, with lawmakers making necessary changes along the way.” In Exhibit 4, we combined those who favored giving it “a chance to work” with those who expressed “favorable” overall views of the law. This shows that since 2010 more Americans favored the law or wanted to give it time to be improved than backed repeal. Although support for repeal inched up since 2010, a greater percentage of Americans consistently favored the ACA and improving it over repeal by a 41-to-37 margin in 2010 and by 49-to-43 in 2016.

Exhibit 4: More Americans Prefer To Keep And Improve The Affordable Care Act Than Repeal It (percent)

Question: This figure is based on two survey questions. The first is the following: “As you may know, a major health care bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about this law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it, or do you have a neutral opinion, neither favorable nor unfavorable?” Respondents who had an unfavorable view were asked a second question about their view about the law’s future: “The law should be given more time to have a chance to work, with lawmakers making necessary changes along the way, OR the law should be repealed as soon as possible?” The repeal bar reports responses from the second question; the other bar adds together favorable responses in the first question with the “law should be given more time” responses.

Support for keeping and improving the ACA stems from a growing appreciation for its concrete effects. Exhibit 5 shows that rising percentages pinpoint the ACA’s tangible programs as having either “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of an impact on themselves and their family (other options included “some,” “a little,” and “none”). There is greater recognition in 2016 compared to 2010 or 2012 of the impact of allowing parents with insurance to continue to cover their children until they are 26 years old. More than one in five Americans now report that the ACA expanded their access to health insurance. In addition, nearly one in four Americans, 24 percent, voiced appreciation for the impact of the ACA’s assistance to seniors to pay for prescription medications. Moreover, recognition of a personal impact resulting from the ACA’s tax credits and other subsidies to help people purchase health insurance has remained stable since 2014 and is higher than in earlier years.

Exhibit 5: Rising Appreciation Of The Impact Of The Affordable Care Act (percent)

Question: “I’m going to read to you a list of some of the features of the health care law that was enacted in 2010. For each one, please answer this question: “How much of an impact has this feature had on you and your family: a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, none?” Respondents are asked about the following features of health reform: coverage of adult children on their parents’ insurance plans until they are 26 years old; access to health insurance or medical care supported or provided by government; help for seniors to pay for prescription drugs; and tax credits and other subsidies to help people pay for health insurance. Exhibit 5 combines “a great deal” and “quite a bit.”

The New Vital Center On Health Reform

Overall evaluations of the ACA follow the partisan pattern that is familiar today: 68 percent of Democrats have favorable views versus 9 percent of Republicans. What stands out, however, is that the ACA’s tangible effects are starting to loosen rigid partisan dividing lines. Exhibit 6 shows the percentage of Americans reporting a personal impact from at least one of the four provisions presented in Exhibit 5. Democratic elected officials enacted the ACA, and, not surprisingly, majorities of rank-and-file Democrats have generally singled out the law’s effects from early on: 51 percent of Democrats reported an impact from at least one of the law’s features in 2010; by 2016, this recognition remained largely stable, inching up to 54 percent. Strikingly, however, the percentage of Republicans perceiving an impact on themselves or their families has increased by 8 percentage points, from 26 percent in 2010 to 34 percent in 2016 despite vociferous GOP attacks on the ACA. Among independents, the proportion soared by 23 points, from 28 percent to 51 percent. These findings indicate that appreciation for the ACA has expanded beyond the ranks of Democratic partisans who were predisposed to favor it; growing numbers of Americans across the political spectrum increasingly value the impacts of health reform in their own lives.

Exhibit 6. Widening Appreciation Of The Affordable Care Act’s Impact (percent reporting impact of a new benefit)

Exhibit 6 presents the percentage of respondents who reported that at least one of the four provisions presented in Exhibit 5 had a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of impact on themselves or their family.

The crux of the public discontent with the ACA—and the repeal proposals by Republicans—is the amount paid for insurance coverage. Respondents to the survey appear to share the complaint of ACA critics that insurance costs are too high. After high expectations following the ACA’s enactment, satisfaction with the cost of health coverage has dropped by 10 points—from 73 percent satisfied in 2010 to 63 percent in 2016. This general assessment misses, however, a crucial condition—whether or not individuals are covered by government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or a subsidy financed by the ACA. We found a striking pattern among Republicans, Democrats, and independents: By a margin of 20 points or more, individuals with government coverage were consistently more satisfied with the cost of insurance than those who rely on private health plans. For instance, 79 percent of Republicans with government coverage were content with insurance costs as compared to 56 percent without this coverage. Independents outside the sway of either major party expressed the highest satisfaction when experiencing government coverage (100 percent) and exhibit the largest gap between those covered and those without coverage (41 points).

In short, Republican public officials continue to spotlight what they perceive as the disappointment of Americans with ACA coverage, but the reality is that the most dissatisfied are those who lack government insurance. In fact, most Americans (including Republicans) who benefit from government insurance are content with their coverage.

Health Reform’s New Vital Center

Public opinion toward the ACA has been poorly understood because of an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, a growing share of the public harbor unfavorable views of the ACA as a whole, and proponents of repeal have seized on this dissatisfaction to claim a popular mandate. On the other hand, the discontent of Americans stemmed from disappointment with the ACA for not satisfying their expectations of genuine protection from the burden of costs. Far from wanting to be rid of the ACA, Americans are looking to it to deliver more effective protection.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote of the “vital center” about the direction of America that was supported by both major political parties and most Americans. Despite today’s fractiousness in Washington over health reform, everyday Americans are converging toward a new vital center of support for health care reform.

Awareness of the ACA’s tangible impacts fits into a robust notion of collective responsibility instead of the individualist approach advocated by conservatives. Since the ACA’s passage, nearly nine out of 10 Americans have consistently embraced access to health care as a “basic right.” Not surprisingly, nearly all Democrats embrace the principle of health care as a right. What stands out is that rank-and-file Republicans overwhelming and increasingly hold the same view—rising from 64 percent in 2010 to 72 percent in 2016. Contrary to the position of Washington Republicans, establishing health care as a birthright owed to Americans is now widely shared. Republican proposals, such as those that would allow states to opt out of some of the ACA’s core consumer protections (including those guaranteeing coverage for individuals with preexisting medical conditions), may well tap into this strain of public opinion and provoke broad opposition.

Elected officials in Washington and, particularly, steadfast opponents of health reform are sliding to the margins of public opinion. The daily problems that Americans face in paying for medical care and insurance mean that pragmatism is trumping ideology. In the past, federal lawmakers responded to broad public agreement and worked across the aisle to improve the flaws in the original legislation that produced Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. The question today is whether Washington can return to that pragmatic tradition and catch up to the emerging vital center in Americans’ attitudes toward health reform.

Note 1

Congressional Budget Office. American Health Care Act: cost estimate. Washington (DC): CBO; 2017 Mar 13.

Note 2

Tax Policy Center. Tax units above and below the $250,000/$200,000 threshold, 2013–2022. Washington (DC): TPC; 2012 Nov 26

from Health Affairs BlogHealth Affairs Blog http://ift.tt/2vYBFzY

Outside Of Washington, There Is A New Vital Center In Health Care Reform

Republicans in Congress are mired in political quicksand. Following passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, they locked themselves into a promise to repeal and replace it at the behest of ultra-conservative donors and party activists who control the GOP's nomination process. Since 2010, however, Americans and rank-and-file Republicans increasingly came to expect help meeting the rising costs of medical care and insurance and to accept the ACA's tangible programs to address these concrete challenges.

The Democrats created their own political trap. They passed the ACA on the promise of making health care affordable but deductibles and rising premiums continued to present a burden to many Americans.

Both parties are missing, however, the vital center on health reform that has formed since 2010. Americans are frustrated with Democrats for not delivering on their promise of affordability, and they are now alarmed with Republican efforts to repeal—instead of improve—the ACA's coverage of costs.

Tracking Changes In Public Opinion

Most public opinion polls are unable to track these changes in opinion about health care because they are only snapshots, drawn from a moment in time. To remedy this, we have been gathering panel data, tracking the views of the same group of Americans every two years since the ACA's passage in 2010. This equips us to study how individuals respond to the ACA as they experience or learn more about the law's provisions over time. Specifically, we conducted four waves of interviews in the two-month period leading up to national elections from 2010 to 2016 when health reform received heightened attention; this avoided the risk of choosing an arbitrary month when health reform might have arbitrarily lost or gained salience.

The first wave was conducted by the Survey Research Institute (SRI) at Cornell University and consisted of a national sample of 1,200 adults. Abt SRBI (now part of Abt Associates) conducted the last three waves, returning to the same individuals. All waves asked identical questions and were administered by telephone, using only landlines in 2010 and adding mobile phones in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Forty-nine percent of the original 2010 survey (587 individuals) responded to all four waves. Survey weights were applied to each survey to match representative demographic targets and allow us to generalize from our panel to the adult population in the United States.

Why Americans Dislike Health Reform

Republicans have been eager to highlight the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare." Exhibit 1 shows that unfavorable assessments of the ACA have steadily increased since its passage. Unfavorability rose from 44 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2016.

Exhibit 1: Increasingly Unfavorable Views Of The Affordable Care Act (percent)

Question: "As you may know, a major health care bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about this law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it, or do you have a neutral opinion, neither favorable nor unfavorable?" Exhibit 1 presents the "unfavorable" responses.

Why are Americans increasingly disenchanted with the ACA? The public's displeasure emanates to a large extent from frustrations with health care costs. Democrats promised to lower the costs of medical care and insurance with the enactment of the ACA. They did succeed to slow the rate of increase in national health care spending and insulate most subsidized enrollees in its insurance Marketplace from premium increases, as the Congressional Budget Office reports (Note 1). Yet, the costs of medical care remain high, and premiums and deductibles are out of the reach of some Americans.

The source of the public's rising frustration with health care costs is picked up in Exhibit 2. The first grouping of bars on the left shows increasing frustration with costs for medical treatments that are not covered by insurers. By 2016, 14 percent expressed dissatisfaction with the amount and number of treatments that their insurance covered, a 6-point increase from 2014. One-third of Americans also expressed dissatisfaction in 2016 with the out-of-pocket costs that they were forced to pay because of gaps in their insurance coverage, as shown in the middle cluster. This is an 8-point increase from 2014.

Exhibit 2: Rising Concerns About Affordability (percent)

Question: Several questions asked respondents to indicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with individual features of the health care system—"The number and kind of treatments your health insurance will cover" and "The amount you spend out of pocket on health care costs your insurance doesn't cover." A separate item asked respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statement: "Public officials care about making health care more affordable for people like me." (Exhibit 2 shows "disagreement" with the statement.)

The public's disappointment with the persistent burden of health care costs leads it to blame lawmakers for a lack of responsiveness. The bars on the right in Exhibit 2 indicate that a growing majority of Americans disagree with the statement that, "Public officials care about making health care more affordable for people like me." Fifty-eight percent of Americans disagreed with this statement in 2016, a 10-point increase since 2012.

In addition, the sense that the ACA has not delivered the affordability that Democrats promised may help account for the sharply stronger conclusion in recent years that the ACA's taxes present a heavier burden. Exhibit 3 shows that the proportion of Americans who believe that their taxes have increased a lot or a little has risen from 43 percent in 2012 to 56 percent in 2016. This growing perception that the ACA has increased taxes rests on inaccurate assumptions. The ACA's financing primarily relies on two taxes on individuals whose yearly income exceeds $200,000 or for married couples earning more than $250,000—an increase in Medicare's tax on earnings by 0.9 percent and a new 3.8 percent tax on capital gains from investments. These taxes fall on less than 2 percent of tax filers, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (Note 2).

Exhibit 3: Growing Perception That The Affordable Care Act Increased Taxes (percent)

Question: "Do you think that the new health care law enacted in 2010 has increased the taxes that you pay, decreased the taxes that you pay, or has it had no impact on the taxes that you pay?"

Americans Oppose Repeal Because They Appreciate The Effects Of Health Reform

Considering the strong public disapproval of repeal, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are discovering that it is a mistake to equate the public's frustrations with the ACA with support for repealing its programs. When respondents reported "unfavorable" views of the law, we followed up with a question asking them whether they would prefer either "repeal[ing] [the ACA] as soon as possible," or "giving the law more time to have a chance to work, with lawmakers making necessary changes along the way." In Exhibit 4, we combined those who favored giving it "a chance to work" with those who expressed "favorable" overall views of the law. This shows that since 2010 more Americans favored the law or wanted to give it time to be improved than backed repeal. Although support for repeal inched up since 2010, a greater percentage of Americans consistently favored the ACA and improving it over repeal by a 41-to-37 margin in 2010 and by 49-to-43 in 2016.

Exhibit 4: More Americans Prefer To Keep And Improve The Affordable Care Act Than Repeal It (percent)

Question: This figure is based on two survey questions. The first is the following: "As you may know, a major health care bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about this law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it, or do you have a neutral opinion, neither favorable nor unfavorable?" Respondents who had an unfavorable view were asked a second question about their view about the law's future: "The law should be given more time to have a chance to work, with lawmakers making necessary changes along the way, OR the law should be repealed as soon as possible?" The repeal bar reports responses from the second question; the other bar adds together favorable responses in the first question with the "law should be given more time" responses.

Support for keeping and improving the ACA stems from a growing appreciation for its concrete effects. Exhibit 5 shows that rising percentages pinpoint the ACA's tangible programs as having either "a great deal" or "quite a bit" of an impact on themselves and their family (other options included "some," "a little," and "none"). There is greater recognition in 2016 compared to 2010 or 2012 of the impact of allowing parents with insurance to continue to cover their children until they are 26 years old. More than one in five Americans now report that the ACA expanded their access to health insurance. In addition, nearly one in four Americans, 24 percent, voiced appreciation for the impact of the ACA's assistance to seniors to pay for prescription medications. Moreover, recognition of a personal impact resulting from the ACA's tax credits and other subsidies to help people purchase health insurance has remained stable since 2014 and is higher than in earlier years.

Exhibit 5: Rising Appreciation Of The Impact Of The Affordable Care Act (percent)

Question: "I'm going to read to you a list of some of the features of the health care law that was enacted in 2010. For each one, please answer this question: "How much of an impact has this feature had on you and your family: a great deal, quite a bit, some, a little, none?" Respondents are asked about the following features of health reform: coverage of adult children on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26 years old; access to health insurance or medical care supported or provided by government; help for seniors to pay for prescription drugs; and tax credits and other subsidies to help people pay for health insurance. Exhibit 5 combines "a great deal" and "quite a bit."

The New Vital Center On Health Reform

Overall evaluations of the ACA follow the partisan pattern that is familiar today: 68 percent of Democrats have favorable views versus 9 percent of Republicans. What stands out, however, is that the ACA's tangible effects are starting to loosen rigid partisan dividing lines. Exhibit 6 shows the percentage of Americans reporting a personal impact from at least one of the four provisions presented in Exhibit 5. Democratic elected officials enacted the ACA, and, not surprisingly, majorities of rank-and-file Democrats have generally singled out the law's effects from early on: 51 percent of Democrats reported an impact from at least one of the law's features in 2010; by 2016, this recognition remained largely stable, inching up to 54 percent. Strikingly, however, the percentage of Republicans perceiving an impact on themselves or their families has increased by 8 percentage points, from 26 percent in 2010 to 34 percent in 2016 despite vociferous GOP attacks on the ACA. Among independents, the proportion soared by 23 points, from 28 percent to 51 percent. These findings indicate that appreciation for the ACA has expanded beyond the ranks of Democratic partisans who were predisposed to favor it; growing numbers of Americans across the political spectrum increasingly value the impacts of health reform in their own lives.

Exhibit 6. Widening Appreciation Of The Affordable Care Act's Impact (percent reporting impact of a new benefit)

Exhibit 6 presents the percentage of respondents who reported that at least one of the four provisions presented in Exhibit 5 had a "great deal" or "quite a bit" of impact on themselves or their family.

The crux of the public discontent with the ACA—and the repeal proposals by Republicans—is the amount paid for insurance coverage. Respondents to the survey appear to share the complaint of ACA critics that insurance costs are too high. After high expectations following the ACA's enactment, satisfaction with the cost of health coverage has dropped by 10 points—from 73 percent satisfied in 2010 to 63 percent in 2016. This general assessment misses, however, a crucial condition—whether or not individuals are covered by government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or a subsidy financed by the ACA. We found a striking pattern among Republicans, Democrats, and independents: By a margin of 20 points or more, individuals with government coverage were consistently more satisfied with the cost of insurance than those who rely on private health plans. For instance, 79 percent of Republicans with government coverage were content with insurance costs as compared to 56 percent without this coverage. Independents outside the sway of either major party expressed the highest satisfaction when experiencing government coverage (100 percent) and exhibit the largest gap between those covered and those without coverage (41 points).

In short, Republican public officials continue to spotlight what they perceive as the disappointment of Americans with ACA coverage, but the reality is that the most dissatisfied are those who lack government insurance. In fact, most Americans (including Republicans) who benefit from government insurance are content with their coverage.

Health Reform's New Vital Center

Public opinion toward the ACA has been poorly understood because of an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, a growing share of the public harbor unfavorable views of the ACA as a whole, and proponents of repeal have seized on this dissatisfaction to claim a popular mandate. On the other hand, the discontent of Americans stemmed from disappointment with the ACA for not satisfying their expectations of genuine protection from the burden of costs. Far from wanting to be rid of the ACA, Americans are looking to it to deliver more effective protection.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote of the "vital center" about the direction of America that was supported by both major political parties and most Americans. Despite today's fractiousness in Washington over health reform, everyday Americans are converging toward a new vital center of support for health care reform.

Awareness of the ACA's tangible impacts fits into a robust notion of collective responsibility instead of the individualist approach advocated by conservatives. Since the ACA's passage, nearly nine out of 10 Americans have consistently embraced access to health care as a "basic right." Not surprisingly, nearly all Democrats embrace the principle of health care as a right. What stands out is that rank-and-file Republicans overwhelming and increasingly hold the same view—rising from 64 percent in 2010 to 72 percent in 2016. Contrary to the position of Washington Republicans, establishing health care as a birthright owed to Americans is now widely shared. Republican proposals, such as those that would allow states to opt out of some of the ACA's core consumer protections (including those guaranteeing coverage for individuals with preexisting medical conditions), may well tap into this strain of public opinion and provoke broad opposition.

Elected officials in Washington and, particularly, steadfast opponents of health reform are sliding to the margins of public opinion. The daily problems that Americans face in paying for medical care and insurance mean that pragmatism is trumping ideology. In the past, federal lawmakers responded to broad public agreement and worked across the aisle to improve the flaws in the original legislation that produced Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. The question today is whether Washington can return to that pragmatic tradition and catch up to the emerging vital center in Americans' attitudes toward health reform.

Note 1

Congressional Budget Office. American Health Care Act: cost estimate. Washington (DC): CBO; 2017 Mar 13.

Note 2

Tax Policy Center. Tax units above and below the $250,000/$200,000 threshold, 2013–2022. Washington (DC): TPC; 2012 Nov 26

from Health Affairs BlogHealth Affairs Blog http://ift.tt/2vYBFzY

12 Letter H Activities

We’re learning the letter H! I’ve gathered a bunch of fun letter H activities to do with your kids. Most of these crafts just look like fun and that is the best way to learn.

I’m excited to get crafting some of my favorite letter H things like hippos and hot air balloons!

12 Letter H Activities

Turn an uppercase H into a hippo! This is my kids favorite animal – so fun!

H is for horse. This fun craft turns a construction paper letter H into a horse. via Miss Maren’s Monkeys

Use your handprints to make a yellow beehive! via Pinterest

Cut out red hearts from paper and fill up a letter H. H is for hearts! via I Can Teach My Child

Make this fun hot air balloon from a paper plate. via Brilliant Beginnings Preschool

Or try making a hot air balloon from a cupcake liner! via I Heart Crafty Things

Use these great letter H free printables to practice.

Make a Hermit crab with your handprint – this is so cute! via Diapers to Diplomas

Use a paper plate to make this adorable hedgehog! via Fiche Maternelle

Make a hamburger! Use construction paper to build your own hamburger. via Pinterest

Practice writing the letter H with these playdough mats. via In My World

Make a construction paper helicopter with cotton ball clouds. via Ducks in a Row

Fun With Letters Preschool Alphabet Resource

Continue your Letter H learning by signing up for our email series Fun With Letters. This preschool alphabet resource is full of activities, worksheets and coloring pages.

The post 12 Letter H Activities appeared first on Kids Activities Blog.

from Kids Activities Blog http://ift.tt/2uQ5nqo

Kid-Made Coffee Stirrer Froggies

Summer is the perfect season for catching frogs! But if you don’t live near a pond or lake, what do you do? You craft, of course! Shared below is an adorable kid-made craft created from coffee stirrers! Coffee Stirrer Froggies are fun for kids of all ages and they are the perfect craft for summer.

Coffee Stirrer Froggies

My children love all things frog! To make this sweet summer craft you will need:

• Wooden coffee stirrers
• Red and green markers
• Glitter (green)
• Green pony beads
• Wiggly eyes
• White school glue
• 1 craft stick (standard sized)
• Scissors

After gathering supplies, begin by coloring the coffee stirrers green with the marker. Next, glue 2 green coffee stirrers together with white school glue.

Tip: Use wax paper to protect your surface while glueing.

While the craft sticks are drying, glue a wiggly eye on each of the pony beads. Use the glue to secure the pony bead “eyes” to the craft sticks.

Just for fun, lightly coat the craft sticks with glue, then sprinkle green glitter all over them.

Last, use scissors to cut the end off of a regular craft stick. Color it red with a marker. Glue the piece of craft stick onto the green coffee stirrers to create the frog’s mouth.

The post Kid-Made Coffee Stirrer Froggies appeared first on Kids Activities Blog.

from Kids Activities Blog http://ift.tt/2a3m9qm

12 Letter H Activities

We're learning the letter H! I've gathered a bunch of fun letter H activities to do with your kids. Most of these crafts just look like fun and that is the best way to learn.

I'm excited to get crafting some of my favorite letter H things like hippos and hot air balloons!

12 Letter H Activities

Turn an uppercase H into a hippo! This is my kids favorite animal – so fun!

H is for horse. This fun craft turns a construction paper letter H into a horse. via Miss Maren's Monkeys

Use your handprints to make a yellow beehive! via Pinterest

Cut out red hearts from paper and fill up a letter H. H is for hearts! via I Can Teach My Child

Make this fun hot air balloon from a paper plate. via Brilliant Beginnings Preschool

Or try making a hot air balloon from a cupcake liner! via I Heart Crafty Things

Use these great letter H free printables to practice.

Make a Hermit crab with your handprint – this is so cute! via Diapers to Diplomas

Use a paper plate to make this adorable hedgehog! via Fiche Maternelle

Make a hamburger! Use construction paper to build your own hamburger. via Pinterest

Practice writing the letter H with these playdough mats. via In My World

Make a construction paper helicopter with cotton ball clouds. via Ducks in a Row

Fun With Letters Preschool Alphabet Resource

Continue your Letter H learning by signing up for our email series Fun With Letters. This preschool alphabet resource is full of activities, worksheets and coloring pages.

The post 12 Letter H Activities appeared first on Kids Activities Blog.

from Kids Activities Blog http://ift.tt/2uQ5nqo

Kid-Made Coffee Stirrer Froggies

Summer is the perfect season for catching frogs! But if you don't live near a pond or lake, what do you do? You craft, of course! Shared below is an adorable kid-made craft created from coffee stirrers! Coffee Stirrer Froggies are fun for kids of all ages and they are the perfect craft for summer.

Coffee Stirrer Froggies

My children love all things frog! To make this sweet summer craft you will need:

• Wooden coffee stirrers
• Red and green markers
• Glitter (green)
• Green pony beads
• Wiggly eyes
• White school glue
• 1 craft stick (standard sized)
• Scissors

After gathering supplies, begin by coloring the coffee stirrers green with the marker. Next, glue 2 green coffee stirrers together with white school glue.

Tip: Use wax paper to protect your surface while glueing.

While the craft sticks are drying, glue a wiggly eye on each of the pony beads. Use the glue to secure the pony bead "eyes" to the craft sticks.

Just for fun, lightly coat the craft sticks with glue, then sprinkle green glitter all over them.

Last, use scissors to cut the end off of a regular craft stick. Color it red with a marker. Glue the piece of craft stick onto the green coffee stirrers to create the frog's mouth.

The post Kid-Made Coffee Stirrer Froggies appeared first on Kids Activities Blog.

from Kids Activities Blog http://ift.tt/2a3m9qm

The Best Essential Oils for the Kitchen

Are you looking for some natural remedies for your kitchen? Whether you’re looking to keep things cleaner or create a more welcoming kitchen, there are a number of remedies you may want to try out. Here are some ways to use essential oils for the kitchen that you must know about!

How to Use Essential Oils for the Kitchen

Make the Most of Natural Cleaners

If you’re trying to go greener and ditch the high-chemical household cleaning products, look no further! There are a number of items you may have on hand that can be used around your kitchen.

Vinegar makes for an excellent household cleaner. You can use it to disinfect cutting boards, clean your fridge, and so much more.

Another ideal household cleaner is lemon! It’s a great disinfectant, making it a great way to get rid of bacteria. Not only will it make your metal pots and pans shinier, but it can also get rid of tough stains and breaking up grease. You can either use lemon juice or lemon essential oil to reap the benefits!

Peppermint essential oil is another great disinfectant that you might want to consider using in your kitchen! In addition to killing bacteria, it can also kill mildew and remove stains.  

Create a Homemade Air Freshener

Are you tired of those kitchen odors that linger for hours after you’ve finished cooking? If so, you might want to try making a homemade air freshener. You can create a natural air freshener using essential oils. Lemon, lime, clove, and cinnamon essential oils can even get rid of fish odors! Peppermint essential oil can also make for a great DIY air freshener.

Create the Right Mood for Your Kitchen

Since the kitchen is the center of your home, the last thing you will want is for it to be a place of stress and arguments. Therefore, setting the right mood can go a long way.

For starters, take a look at your room décor. Calming blues and cheerful yellows tend to be great options for the kitchen. Try to avoid shades of red, which can make people angry.  

You might also consider using essential oils to reduce the stress in your kitchen. Lavender oil is a great option, as it has a calming effect on the mind and body.

These are just some natural remedies for your kitchen! There are plenty of great ways to lead an eco-friendlier life and improve your kitchen at the same time.

New to Essential Oils?

Ha! Me too…awhile ago.

It can be overwhelming with so many oils & choices.

This exclusive package {available for a limited time} gives you everything you need to get started and the information you need to know what to do!

As a Young Living Independent distributor, I started with their AMAZING starter kit & then added a few things I thought you might like…

…like a super huge essential oil information manual. I use mine ALL THE TIME. It is a place you can look up information about each oil individually or find information by looking up the problem you want to solve.

…like an Amazon gift card for $20! You can use it for additional resources or accessories OR just whatever you want!

…like membership in our group’s private FB community. This is a great place to ask questions, get suggestions and find out how other people are using their essential oils. As part of my team, you can also choose other groups like our business building or blogging communities as well.

Check out this article for more information about how to get this essential oil deal from Kids Activities Blog.

 

The post The Best Essential Oils for the Kitchen appeared first on Kids Activities Blog.

from Kids Activities Blog http://ift.tt/2viebsy

Make Your Own Rainbow Paper Beads

Get out the printer and some scissors and have fun making your own pretty rainbow paper beads. Rainbow crafts are so much fun because you can use so many different colors. You can create with the whole rainbow, or just pick a few of your favorites and combine with your friends. Today I have a craft for you that was a favorite for me as a kid. Paper beads!

Rainbow Paper Beads

You can make a bunch  of beads from any kind of paper and then make necklaces, bracelets and other fun accessories. I’ve got a free printable rainbow craft  sheet for you to use so you can make these really colorful rainbow beads.

Materials:

• Printable Rainbow Bead Activity sheet designed by Jen Goode
• Scissors
• Glue – I like Aleene’s because it sticks really nicely
• Toothpicks
• Yarn or twine

How to Make  Rainbow Paper Beads

1. Cut out each of the color strips from the printed activity sheet.
2. Using pincher fingers, wrap paper strip, wide end first, around a toothpick.
3. Add a bit of glue to the last 1-2″ of paper and then roll completely.
4. Remove from toothpick and let the glue dry.
5. Once all the beads are dry, thread them on to a piece of twine or yarn to make your accessories.

 

Tip: don’t roll the paper too tightly or it will be difficult to not only remove from the toothpick, but it will also be hard to thread the bead on to your project.

 

 

Threading tip: Add some tape to the end of the twine, about 1″ long. Trim to a pointed shape. This will stiffen the twine and allow little hands to thread their beads on a bit easier.

 

 

Download this Free printable Rainbow Bead page designed by Jen Goode

These rainbow paper beads make a great kids activity for parties too!

More rainbow activities and crafts:

Rainbow Garland with Free Printable

35 Rainbow crafts and activities

Make Watercolor Rainbow Tassels

Cute Rainbow Coloring page

Make Watercolor Coffee Filter Art  

 

This is a great group activity for the summer too. The kids love to compare the beads and see how quickly they can make them.  I hope you have fun making your own rainbow beads!

The post Make Your Own Rainbow Paper Beads appeared first on Kids Activities Blog.

from Kids Activities Blog http://ift.tt/2vimFQ4