Monday, July 22, 2013

Insurers See Way To Dodge Federal Healthcare Law Next Year

A new fight is brewing over health insurance companies letting millions of Americans renew their current coverage for another year — and thereby avoid changes under the federal healthcare law.

That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.

At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama's landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.

"Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.

Some of the nation's biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers' renewal dates for the end of December. There's also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.

Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.

"This could undermine the Affordable Care Act, and it opens the door for exacerbating potential rate shock in the exchanges," said Christine Monahan, a senior analyst at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "The health insurers can cherry-pick some healthy people and it raises prices for everyone else."

This issue could affect some of the 15 million people nationwide who purchase their own coverage and millions more of the uninsured who are expected to join government exchanges next year. It would not pertain to the 150 million Americans who get health benefits through their employers.

Many health insurers are still mulling over their options on how to handle these individual renewals.

"Some carriers will require everyone to switch plans Jan. 1, and other carriers will allow customers to stay on their existing plan as long as possible," said Bob Hurley, senior vice president of carrier relations at online site eHealthInsurance. "We are trying to nail this down with the carriers. I think it would be better for consumers to have that choice to carry their policy forward."

The nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minnetonka, Minn., said, "We are currently looking at the best way to serve our customers' best interests while continuing to comply with the Affordable Care Act going into 2014."

WellPoint Inc., the Indianapolis insurance giant that runs Blue Cross plans in California and 13 other states, said its renewal practices will vary by state. In California, the company said its Anthem Blue Cross unit may allow individual policyholders to renew through March 31.

Kaiser Permanente, a major nonprofit health plan based in Oakland, said it doesn't plan to renew policies beyond Jan. 1 in California and most of the other states where it sells coverage.

Richard Kern and his wife, a retired couple in Los Angeles, say they would welcome the flexibility to keep their individual policy from Aetna Inc. for another year amid so much uncertainty over next year's rates.

"We don't even know what the prices and alternatives are under Obamacare," Kern said. "We are waiting for the other shoe to drop."

If an insurer offers this option, it would then be up to consumers to decide whether they want to renew an existing policy into 2014. The length of any renewal may depend on what month their annual plan year begins.

Many lower-income people will qualify for federal premium subsidies, which will be available only when purchasing new coverage available in state- or federal-run insurance exchanges. It would make financial sense to take advantage of that government aid. Individuals earning less than $46,000 or families below $94,000 annually would be eligible for subsidies.

However, many people who are middle income or above could face significantly higher premiums next year with no subsidies. Those premium increases are tied to federal requirements that insurers accept all applicants regardless of their medical condition and the inclusion of more comprehensive benefits.

Renewing an older policy could mean forgoing some of those richer benefits and new limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Last week, California officials estimated that premiums may rise 30% on average for about 1.3 million existing policyholders primarily because of those changes in the federal law. Insurers have warned that some customers could see their premiums double depending on their age and other factors.

Citing that threat of higher rates, Arkansas officials issued a bulletin to insurers last month describing how they could extend individual policies until Dec. 30, 2013, and then renew them for another year.

These health plans "would not be required to comply with the [Affordable Care Act] market reforms until 12/31/2014," according to the Arkansas bulletin.

"For those folks who don't qualify for subsidies, this is a consumer-friendly thing because the premium rates for 2014 will be substantially higher," said Dan Honey, deputy commissioner of compliance for the Arkansas Insurance Department. "You will be exposed to rate shock."

Other states may oppose that approach, further underscoring the uneven implementation of the federal healthcare law across the country. Oregon Insurance Commissioner Louis Savage said these renewals could be problematic and his office issued a rule barring any extension beyond March 31, 2014.

"We want to get as many people as possible into the exchange," Savage said. "I think having renewals go deep into 2014 is counterproductive to the goals of the federal healthcare law."

In California, state lawmakers are working on legislation that could address this renewal issue and other details about how individual policies comply with the federal overhaul.

These questions over renewals are separate from "grandfathered" health policies that existed before the federal law passed in March 2010. Those plans don't have to meet all the requirements of the healthcare law as long as insurers or employers don't make significant changes to them.

chad.terhune@latimes.com


View the original article here

Agribusiness Pushes To Lower Farm Workers’ Wages May Undermine Deal On Immigration Reform

As lawmakers prepare to release legislative language for proposals that would allow an estimated 11.2 million undocumented immigrants to earn a path to citizenship, a small bipartisan group of senators is struggling to reach a deal for how to create a steady supply of labor for farmers and growers, threatening to undermine the newfound momentum for comprehensive reform.

Lawmakers agree that the roughly 1 million individuals currently working without legal status in the agricultural industry are essential to maintaining America’s food supply and should be able to achieve legal status through an expedited legalization process. But the parties remain deeply divided over how to treat future flows of farm workers. Four senators — Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) — are currently involved in tense negotiations between growers and advocates for farm workers, represented by United Farm Workers of America. The talks, which hinge on the wages workers should earn and the number of new visas that should be issued, are close to a standstill, sources involved in the negotiations tell ThinkProgress, as the growers refuse to make concessions and are insisting on paying future farm workers less than they are earning now.

Under current law, growers can legally bring foreign agricultural workers into the United States under the H-2A visa program after making an active effort to recruit U.S. workers in areas of expected labor supply. Employers must pay the higher of the state or federal minimum wage, a local prevailing wage rate or the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR), a Reagan era formula based on the USDA Farm Labor Survey of the average wages of nonsupervisory field and livestock workers. Growers who import labor are prohibited from paying their agricultural workers less than the average of the wages in their region and are exempt from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes on H-2A compensation. As a result, foreign workers cost growers an average of 11 percent less than American workers.

Lax enforcement of H-2A standards, however, has allowed growers to routinely circumvent protections, including advertising requirements and the hiring of illegal international recruiters to import even cheaper labor from Mexico. Workers on H-2A visas, advocates say, are abused by employers, cheated out of pay, and lack basic labor protections like occupational safety standards. Farm workers are paid some of the lowest wages in the country and are more likely to live in poverty and lack basic access to health care than salary employees.

Groups representing farm workers argue that the H-2A system is rifle with abuse, while growers complain that red tape, mass delays, and overregulation serve as barriers to importing needed labor. Both sides have now agreed to establish a new visa program outside of the H-2A structure that would be included in a broader immigration reform deal — but are very far apart in the details of that plan.

Individuals involved in the negotiations say that growers are demanding wage standards that would amount to a significant reduction from the current AEWR formula, allowing employers to import cheap foreign labor while significantly undercutting American workers and lowering the earning potential of future streams of workers. Growers, whose opening offer would have paid workers just 10 percent above the federal minimum wage, have proposed numerous pay formulas, one person directly involved in the negotiations told ThinkProgress, but appear uninterested in compromising with labor groups. Kristi Boswell, Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau — the organization representing growers — pushed back against that formulation, saying that while the discussions are “ongoing,” the growers’ proposals would “increase wages” for farmers and would better represent market conditions. The current AEWR average is $10.80, while grower proposals would pay workers less than $8.

“It must take incredible willpower for growers to utter the words ‘farmworkers are overpaid’ with a straight face,” Marshall Fitz, Director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress, said. Farm workers “are the most difficult and physically demanding jobs in America and are performed by workers making barely above the minimum wage.”

A policy analyst close to the negotiations told ThinkProgress that growers may be refusing to give ground during Senate negotiations in hopes of securing a more favorable agreement in Republican-controlled House. But GOP senators taking part in the talks are growing frustrated, and immigration reform advocates fear that without a clear deal governing future flows of immigrants, comprehensive reform may be in trouble.

“Agribusiness lobby power has kept farm workers excluded from every major labor law for decades,” said Maria Machuca, spokeswoman for the Keene, California-based UFW, in an e-mail. “It would be a grievous mistake to allow agribusiness to use the debate over immigration reform to further reduce wages of the poorest workers in the country.”


View the original article here

Socratic principle

- The late world famous philosopher [[Antony Flew]] proclaimed that his departure from [[atheism]] was caused by consequent adherence to this principle.{{Cite book|title=There is a God, How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind|author=Antony Flew|publisher=HarperOne|year=2008|isbn=978-0-06-133530-3|pages=22, 42, 75, 89|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zbL66ePcjpQC&dq=Antony+Flew+There+is+a+God&source=bl&ots=o0jEX-bGMl&sig=Rrf5Tv5MynLGVHFOhZy95LFfLGw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zfx_UI7sNLDY4QSLi4HAAQ&redir_esc=y|quote=he was obeying the the command that the Plato in the Republic attributes to Socrates: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads." ...This Socratic principle also formed the inspiration of Socratic Club, a group that was really at the center of what intellectual life there was in wartime Oxford. ...C.S. Lewis's Socratic Club was open for business during the heyday of the new philosophy, and the Socratic principle I saw exemplified there...This statement represents a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life - of following the argument no matter where it leads...When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads."}}  +   + *The late world famous philosopher [[Antony Flew]] claimed that his departure from [[atheism]] was caused by consequent adherence to this principle.{{Cite book|title=There is a God, How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind|author=Antony Flew|publisher=HarperOne|year=2008|isbn=978-0-06-133530-3|pages=22, 42, 75, 89|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zbL66ePcjpQC&dq=Antony+Flew+There+is+a+God&source=bl&ots=o0jEX-bGMl&sig=Rrf5Tv5MynLGVHFOhZy95LFfLGw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zfx_UI7sNLDY4QSLi4HAAQ&redir_esc=y|quote=he was obeying the the command that the Plato in the Republic attributes to Socrates: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads." ...This Socratic principle also formed the inspiration of Socratic Club, a group that was really at the center of what intellectual life there was in wartime Oxford. ...C.S. Lewis's Socratic Club was open for business during the heyday of the new philosophy, and the Socratic principle I saw exemplified there...This statement represents a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life - of following the argument no matter where it leads...When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads."}}   + **''...Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. '''Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable'''; moreover, it represents '''a discrepancy with the theory''', because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape '''the horror of a unique position'''{{#tag:ref|Similar embarrassment known from history of science, or philosophy, respectively and related to [[vacuum]] was expressed by famous sentence ''"[[horror vacui]]."''|group=note}}, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature.''  + Although not explicitly mentioning the Socratic principle, [[Richard Feynman]] effectually comments that the reluctance to adopt it and an effort to replace it with [[prejudice]] in case of a so called unique position of [[Earth]] in the [[universe]] stems barely from [[embarrassment]] and not [[exact sciences|scientific rigor]]: ''"I suspect that '''the assumption of uniformity''' of the universe reflects a [[prejudice]] born of a sequence of overthrows of [[geocentric]] ideas...It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary [[planet]] about an ordinary [[star]] in an ordinary [[galaxy]], that our place in the universe is extraordinary...to avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity"''{{cite book |title=Feynman Lectures on Gravitation |author=Richard Phillips Feynman et al. |publisher=Westview Press |year=2002 |page=166 |isbn=978-0813-340388 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jL9reHGIcMgC&dq=Feynman+lectures+on+gravitation&source=bl&ots=_nuGcNOn2_&sig=VyTgUmNcfeCOiwisdwoTEgKK9og&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gaYyUMHwIcfP4QTm5YD4Ag&redir_esc=y}}. Slovak mathematician Adam Roman maintains that scientists should base their research on starting point where except verifiable [[fact]]s no biased ''[[a priori]]'' assumptions are made. Furthermore, scientists should bear the [[burden of proof]] in any case of [[reductionism|reducing]] the set of [[explanation in science|explanatory]] possibilities. Narrowing down options requires [[Scientific evidence|proof]] from one who argues that this narrowing (such as ''"the theory postulates homogeneity"''; ''a favoured position...is intolerable''; ''"we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity"'') should take place.{{cite web |title=Kto má pravdu dokazovat? (Who should bear the burden of proof)|author=Adam Roman|date=November 1, 2001|accessdate=June 7, 2013|url=http://adam.humanisti.sk/?p=31|language=Slovak|quote=Ludia pravdu iba zistujú a dokazujú (ak sa im to darí). Isteže, pri objavení neocakávanej pravdy je bremeno dôkazu na nich: ked donedávna ani len nevedeli, co je pravda, a teraz to zistili, s radostou to oznámia celému svetu. Vedci k objavenej pravde radi pripoja aj dôkaz, aby im druhí rozumeli (a uverili, lenže to je už druhoradé: ak rozumieme, môžeme verit). Ten, kto novú, doteraz nepoznanú pravdu objavil, ju rád a bez mucenia aj dokáže. ...Z toho všetkého už zacína citatel tušit, kto je povinný pravdu dokazovat: každý, kto ju odhalil, vychádzajúc z predpokladov, ktoré okrem každým overitelných faktov nic a priori nepredpokladali.  ...A máme tu druhé kritérium pre to, kto má znášat bremeno dôkazu: ten, kto tvrdí, že sa deje jedna z mnohých (apriórne rovnako pravdepodobných!) možností. Ak by niekto tvrdil, že mu pri hode kockou vypadne stále císlo šest, tvrdil by, že sa uskutocní iba jedna zo šiestich možností a mal by preto dokázat, preco akurát vypadne jedno císlo a nikdy nie ostatných pät. Pochopili ste? Zúženie možností si vyžaduje dôkaz od toho, kto tvrdí, že k tomu zúženiu dôjde. Ten, kto tvrdí, že môže vypadnút hocaké císlo, nic dokazovat nemusí, lebo jeho tvrdenie nezavrhuje žiadne možnosti. Napríklad Pytagorova veta sa dokazuje preto, lebo tvrdí, že súcet plôch štvorcov nad odvesnami nie je hocaká plocha, ale akurát plocha štvorca nad preponou. Pytagorova veta, ako každé slušné matematické tvrdenie, zužuje apriórne možnosti, a preto sa musí dokázat. Každé pravdivé tvrdenie je zaujímavé práve preto, že zužuje možnosti. Poznávanie sveta stojí na tom, že vieme co nie je možné. Pre malé dieta je možné všetko, svet (rozumného) dospelého je už chudobnejší na možnosti.}} An [[argument]] where ''a priori'' assumptions (cf. "a... must be avoided at all costs... Therefore, we accept ..., and assume that ...") are masquerading as [[proof|evidence]] for [[conclusion]]s (''"the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions"'') is in effect a form of [[circular reasoning]].{{cite book

View the original article here

Remarks by the President at a DNC Event -- Atherton, CA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Private Residence
Atherton, California

10:28 A.M. PDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Well, it is wonderful to see all of you.  This is an intimate group.  What I want to do is mostly have a conversation.  But, first of all, obviously I want to thank Liz and Mark for their incredible hospitality.  We couldn’t be more appreciative.  And I want to thank all of you for being here today.

A lot of you -- in fact, almost everybody here I’ve known, have supported me.  Some of you were involved in my first campaign when nobody could pronounce my name.  (Laughter.)  And you stuck with me through thick and thin, and I just want to say how much I appreciate all of you for taking the time.

Some people have been asking me -- well, what’s different about the second term?  And I say, well, for one thing, I’m not raising money for myself, and that’s good.  (Laughter.)  For another thing, the girls are getting old enough now where they don’t want to spend time with us on the weekends.  (Laughter.)  They have sleepovers and parties and sports, and all that stuff.  I don’t know if you guys are doing the same thing to your parents, but it’s starting to happen.

But I think the most important thing is that when you don’t have another race to run, all you’re really thinking about it is how do I leave a legacy, not simply for the next President, but for the next generation that makes America stronger; that helps assure our children can compete with an ever-changing world; that we are solving what I think is one of the core challenges we face as a generation, and that is making sure that we have a strong, growing middle class and ladders of opportunity for everybody who is willing to work to get into that middle class; that we continue to be innovative; that we address some of our core environmental challenges, particularly climate change, to make sure that the planet we leave behind is one that our children can thrive in.

So you end up taking the long view on things.  And you also feel a great urgency because you know you don’t have a lot of time.  And so the main message I want to deliver here today is that I could not be prouder of the track record that we’ve put together over the last four years and two months, whether it was saving an economy from a great depression; doubling fuel efficiency standards on cars; expanding access to college for the millions of young people; making sure that nobody in this country has to go bankrupt because they get sick; re-upping the law preventing violence against women; making sure that we have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which I think has laid the groundwork for further progress when it comes to LGBT rights.

On so many issues, we’ve made progress.  But we’ve got so much more work to do.  And I laid out what that vision might look like during both the inauguration speech and in the State of the Union.  I want to make sure that we’ve got the best education system in the world and that starts young.  And so we’ve given all the research that we have.  Expanding our investment in childhood education can make all the difference in the world, and will pay enormous dividends for a very, very long time.

I want to make sure that we’re rebuilding this country, our infrastructure.  We’ve got $2 trillion in deferred maintenance.  We could be putting people back to work right now, and not only improving our current economic growth, but laying the foundation for economic growth for many years to come.  Many of you are aware that I am a big proponent of investments in science and research, and obviously, this entire region has thrived precisely because it has been the epicenter of innovation.  And that requires us putting money into research in biomedicine, in nanoscience.  Our recent initiative around the brain and being able to map that and crack the code potentially not only can help us cure things like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, but can generate entire new industries and put people back to work and be the next great challenge for the American economy.

And I believe that we’ve got to get a handle on our energy policy so that we are growing and we are productive, but we are not simply investing in the energy sources of the past; we’re also investing in the energy sources of the future.  We’ve doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars, but we’ve also had a chance to double our production in solar and wind and biofuels.  We can continue to make progress on that front.  We can continue to make sure that electric cars and other new technologies for transportation are built here in the United States of America and not someplace else. 

We can make sure that our buildings, our schools, our hospitals are more efficient.  If we were able to achieve the same efficiencies that Japan already has achieved using existing technologies, we'd cut our power utilization by 15, 20 percent -- which would have enormous ramifications in bringing down our carbon footprint.

And we can do all this without spending massive amounts of money.  The truth is, is that our fiscal situation has improved significantly since I first came into office, but we still have a long way to go.  The way for us to do it intelligently is the kind of balanced approach I've talked about in the past:  making sure that everybody is doing their fair share; making sure that those of us in this room and, frankly, in this whole town probably -- (laughter) -- recognizes the incredible blessings that we've been given and make sure that we're willing to invest back in the next generation, and also making sure that our money is wisely spent. 

We still waste money in all kinds of things that don't work, and we have the capacity to shift those dollars into things that do work and that will grow our economy.  And we can reduce our deficit, stabilize our debt, and do so without sacrificing the kinds of investments that are going to be required to grow.

Now, the last point I'll make is just politics.  Our policies, the ones that we prevented -- or the ones that we've presented, traditionally, would be considered pretty bipartisan.  There's nothing particularly Democratic about road building or basic science or environmental protection.  Teddy Roosevelt started the conservation movement.  Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, was pretty big on building infrastructure and investing in things like science and research. 

Unfortunately, we continue to still have some of that gridlock in Washington.  Part of it is fed by changes in information and communications that amplify conflict and extremes as opposed to trying to bring people together.  I know it's a great source of frustration for the American people.  I assure you it's a source of frustration for me as well.  (Laughter.)

But what I believed when I was running for this office back in 2007-2008, what I believed when I was running for a second term is what I still believe now -- and that is this country is not as divided as our politics would suggest.  And the only way we break through this gridlock is when people's voices are heard and people are engaged and involved.  I am very optimistic that we get immigration reform done in the next few months.  And the reason I'm optimistic is because people spoke out through the ballot box, and that's breaking gridlock. 

It's going to be tougher to get better gun legislation to reduce gun violence through the Senate and the House that so many of us I think want to see, particularly after the tragedy in Newtown.  But I still think it can get done if people are activated and involved. 

And so, on every front, on every issue that all of you care about, making sure that we can provide good information to the American people, engage them, inform them; make sure that they are embracing a form of citizenship that goes beyond just voting, but involves understanding what's at stake and talking to their neighbors, talking to their coworkers, talking to their friends, writing to their members of Congress, getting organized, getting mobilized -- all that ends up being really the critical ingredient and the constant dynamic change and improvement that has characterized this country for so long.

And your involvement with the DNC helps us do that.  It will help us register voters.  It will help us make sure that they understand what's at stake in all of these issues.  It's hugely important.  It's not always glamorous.  It's not always sexy.  But it's really what ends up driving our ability to make policy and to deliver for the young people who are here today. 

So, again, I want to thank Liz and Mark for making this spectacular home available to us.  And I want to thank all of you for not only what you've done in the past on my behalf, but more importantly what you're continuing to do on behalf of this country as a whole. 

Thank you, so much.  I appreciate it.  (Applause.)

END
10:39 A.M. PDT

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Forensics

(Difference between revisions)'''Forensics''' is the branch of [[science]] that deals with investigating claims and uncovering facts relevant to a court of [[law]].The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, via [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forensics The Free Dictionary]'''Forensics''' is the branch of [[science]] that deals with investigating claims and uncovering facts relevant to a court of [[law]].The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, via [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forensics The Free Dictionary][[Old maxim of Sherlock Holmes]]

Forensics is the branch of science that deals with investigating claims and uncovering facts relevant to a court of law.[1]

Old maxim of Sherlock Holmes

? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, via The Free Dictionary

View the original article here

Navidea advances on new Lymphoseek study data

NEW YORK -- Shares of Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Inc. rose Thursday after the company reported favorable new clinical trial results for its imaging agent Lymphoseek.

Navidea said Thursday that when patients were injected with Lymphoseek, doctors were able to identify cancerous lymph nodes in 38 out of 39 patients believed to have squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

The company said the results suggest doctors could use Lymphoseek to find cancerous lymph nodes in the head and neck without removing and dissecting dozens of additional nodes to search for cancer and determine how far a patient's cancer has spread. That could make surgeries less invasive.

Lymph nodes are small organs spread throughout the body, and they are an important part of the immune system.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Lymphoseek March 13 to help doctors locate lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer and skin cancer. The agency said Lymphoseek is the first new drug approved to help locate lymph nodes in more than 30 years.

Shares of the Dublin, Ohio, company gained 17 cents, or 6.6 percent, to $2.72 in morning trading. The stock has traded between $2.14 and $4.77 in the last year.


View the original article here

Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Somalia

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

NOTICE

- - - - - - -

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO SOMALIA

On April 12, 2010, by Executive Order 13536, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the deterioration of the security situation and the persistence of violence in Somalia, acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, which have repeatedly been the subject of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and violations of the arms embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

On July 20, 2012, I issued Executive Order 13620 to take additional steps to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13536 in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2036 of February 22, 2012, and Resolution 2002 of July 29, 2011, and to address: exports of charcoal from Somalia, which generate significant revenue for al-Shabaab; the misappropriation of Somali public assets; and certain acts of violence committed against civilians in Somalia, all of which contribute to the deterioration of the security situation and the persistence of violence in Somalia.

The situation with respect to Somalia continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on April 12, 2010, and the measures adopted on that date and on July 20, 2012, to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond April 12, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13536.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here