Obama, Boehner talk; Geithner prepared to go off “cliff”












WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republicans in Congress and President Barack Obama consumed much of Wednesday talking up their positions on the “fiscal cliff” and though Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner spoke by phone, neither side offered any new compromises in public.


Nor was the phone call, a rarity, followed by any immediate announcement of a face-to-face meeting that has been widely anticipated all week and was explicitly requested early in the day by House of Representatives Republican leader Eric Cantor.












Asked in an interview with CNBC if the administration was ready to go over the so-called fiscal cliff if Republicans don’t come around on taxes, Obama‘s chief negotiator, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, responded: “Oh, absolutely.”


Facing spending cuts and tax increases that start to take effect in January unless Congress acts, Republicans on Capitol Hill were privately acknowledging that they were taking a public relations thrashing at the hands of the White House, which has marshaled a campaign-style offensive that involves some of the very “job-creators” Republicans say they are protecting.


Obama met with another such corporate group on Wednesday, The Business Roundtable, renewing his call to include tax hikes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans as part of the final resolution and for including an increase in the nation’s borrowing limit.


U.S. stocks rose on Wednesday after Obama also said a deal to avert the fiscal cliff was possible within a week, though he expressed it as a hope not a prediction.


The confrontation has become an endless loop of familiar talking points and well-worn positions. Republican leaders have balked at raising any tax rates, and Democrats have resisted Republican calls for cuts in entitlements like the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs.


Obama said there could be a quick deal if Republican leaders dropped their opposition to raising tax rates for those making more than $ 250,000 a year in exchange for spending cuts and entitlement reforms.


“If we can get the leadership on the Republican side to take that framework, to acknowledge that reality, then the numbers actually aren’t that far apart,” Obama told The Business Roundtable.


“Another way of putting this is we can probably solve this in about a week. It’s not that tough, but we need that conceptual breakthrough,” he said.


Geithner reiterated that there would be no deal without higher tax rates on the wealthy and without a change in congressional rules making it harder to block an increase in the U.S. debt ceiling.


“There is no prospect (for) an agreement that doesn’t involve rates going up on the top 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans,” he told CNBC.


The two sides have submitted proposals to cut deficits by more than $ 4 trillion over the next 10 years, but differ on how to get there. Republicans propose $ 1 trillion more in spending cuts than Obama, while the president wants $ 800 billion more in tax increases and $ 200 billion to boost the sluggish economy.


Republicans have shown cracks in their solidarity on taxes, however, with some saying they would be willing to let rates rise on the wealthiest 2 percent in exchange for extending low rates for the other 98 percent of taxpayers.


‘WE HAVE TO RAISE REVENUE’


Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said he could accept some higher tax rates as part of a long-term solution to the threat posed by spiraling U.S. debt. He said the path to prosperity would require at least a $ 9 trillion package of spending cuts and tax increases over 10 years, rather than the $ 4 trillion being discussed now.


“Personally I know we have to raise revenue. I don’t really care which way we do it. Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way because it gives us a greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future,” Coburn said on MSNBC.


With no resolution in sight and the fiscal cliff looming, the White House budget office has told all federal agencies to begin planning for possible automatic spending cuts that will start taking effect in January without a deal, the White House said.


White House spokesman Jay Carney said the Office of Management and Budget needed to take certain steps to be ready if an agreement is not reached and asked federal agencies for information so it could complete calculations on the required cuts.


Economists have predicted that failure to reach an accord could trigger another recession, and business executives and investors in the financial markets have watched the back and forth anxiously.


Jim McNerney, chairman of the Business Roundtable and chairman and chief executive officer of Boeing Co., called for non-stop negotiations to break the stalemate.


“We encourage both sides to work around the clock, if necessary, to avoid the severe repercussions that inaction would have on U.S. economic growth and job creation,” McNerney said in a statement after Obama’s appearance before the executives.


Obama’s call for including an increase in the debt ceiling in a final package seemed likely to complicate the negotiations.


In his speech to executives, Obama said it was a “bad strategy” for Republicans to believe they would have more leverage next year to extract concessions from the White House by threatening to let the United States default.


A debt ceiling standoff between the White House and House Republicans in 2011 brought the country perilously close to default and resulted in an embarrassing debt rating downgrade.


“I want to send a very clear message to people here: We are not going to play that game next year,” Obama told the executives.


The focus on the debt ceiling is already raising concerns among market watchers.


“The more the Republicans talk about raising or not raising the debt limit, that really makes the market nervous, and makes the White House more nervous than Congress,” said John Brady, managing director at R.J. O’Brien & Associates in Chicago. “The cliff can be punted into the future, but the debt ceiling can’t be.”


(Additional reporting by Kim Dixon, Alina Selyukh, David Alexander, Richard Cowan, Steve Holland and Rodrigo Campos; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Eric Beech)


Seniors/Aging News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

EU fails to agree bank supervisor













EU finance ministers have failed to reach agreement on setting up a single supervisor for eurozone banks after a meeting in Brussels.












Establishing a single supervisor under the European Central Bank (ECB) is seen as the first step in setting up a Europe-wide banking union.


But German and French ministers in particular clashed over the plans.


German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble raised concerns about the scope of ECB powers.


He warned that giving the ECB final say on the supervision of eurozone banks could compromise its independence.


Mr Schauble also reiterated his view that it was not reasonable to expect one institution to supervise all 6,000 European banks.


“It would be very difficult to get an approval from German parliament if [the deal] would leave the supervision for all the German banks to European banking supervision,” Mr Schauble said.


“Nobody believes that any European institution would be capable of supervising 6,000 banks in Europe.”


He also said there had to be a “Chinese wall” between supervision and monetary policy at the ECB.


His French counterpart Pierre Moscovici said the position of France was “steadfast” in support of the proposals.


Cypriot finance minister Vassos Shiarly, who chaired the meeting, called for another gathering to be held on December 12 in the hope of striking a deal.


EU officials are anxious that an agreement is reached before the end of the year.


The plans are seen as central to Europe’s response to the eurozone debt crisis and global financial crisis.


“It is of primordial importance that an agreement be reached by the end of the year,” said EU economic affairs commissioner Olli Rehn. “It is a test that Europe cannot afford to fail.”


BBC News – Business


Read More..

iOS users generate double the Web traffic of Android users












According to the latest numbers from Chitika Insights, iOS users generate more than twice the amount of Web traffic as Android users. The six-month study found that while the two operating systems were nearly tied when it came to smartphone Web traffic, Apple (AAPL) has a substantial lead with its iPad tablet. Despite Android’s commanding share of the overall mobile market, the Cupertino-based company’s platform totaled 67% of Web traffic measured in the past six months, compared to Android’s 35% share.


“Despite all the new Android and Apple devices that have been released over the past six months, little has changed in the overall Web traffic distribution between iOS and Android,” the research firm wrote. “iOS’s share has hovered around 65%, while Android largely has stayed around 35%, the OS hit a peak of 40% in late August thanks partially to strong Samsung Galaxy S III sales. Apple then regained some share with the release of the iPhone 5 in the September timeframe.”












To qualify for the study Chitika Insights analysed billions of ad impressions coming from iOS or Android devices from May 27th to November 27th.


Get more from BGR.com: Follow us on Twitter, Facebook


Gadgets News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Huston’s “Infrared” wins Bad Sex fiction prize












LONDON (AP) — It’s the prize no author wants to win.


Award-winning novelist Nancy Huston won Britain’s Bad Sex in Fiction award Tuesday for her novel “Infrared,” whose tale of a photographer who takes pictures of her lovers during sex proved too revealing for the judges.












The choice was announced by “Downton Abbey” actress Samantha Bond during a ceremony at the Naval & Military Club in London.


Judges of the tongue-in-cheek prize — which is run by the Literary Review magazine — said they were struck by a description of “flesh, that archaic kingdom that brings forth tears and terrors, nightmares, babies and bedazzlements,” and by a long passage that builds to a climax of “undulating space.”


Huston, who lives in Paris, was not on hand to collect her prize. In a statement read by her publicist, the 59-year-old author said she hoped her victory would “incite thousands of British women to take close-up photos of their lovers’ bodies in all states of array and disarray.”


The Canada-born Huston, who writes in both French and English, is the author of more than a dozen novels, including “Plainsong” and “Fault Lines.” She has previously won France’s Prix Goncourt prize and was a finalist for Britain’s Orange Prize for fiction by women.


She is only the third woman to win the annual Bad Sex prize, founded in 1993 to name and shame authors of “crude, tasteless and … redundant passages of sexual description in contemporary novels.”


Some critics, however, have praised the sexual passages in “Infrared.” Shirley Whiteside in the Independent on Sunday newspaper said there were “none of the lazy cliches of pornography or the purple prose of modern romantic fiction” — though she conceded the book’s sex scenes were “more perfunctory than erotic.”


Huston beat finalists including previous winner Tom Wolfe — for his passage in “Back to Blood” describing “his big generative jockey” — and Booker Prize-nominated Nicola Barker, whose novel “The Yips” compares a woman to “a plump Bakewell pudding.”


Previous recipients of the dubious honor, usually accepted with good grace, include Sebastian Faulks, the late Norman Mailer and the late John Updike, who was awarded a Bad Sex lifetime achievement award in 2008.


___


Online: http://www.literaryreview.co.uk


Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Fast-growing fish may never wind up on your plate












WASHINGTON (AP) — Salmon that’s been genetically modified to grow twice as fast as normal could soon show up on your dinner plate. That is, if the company that makes the fish can stay afloat.


After weathering concerns about everything from the safety of humans eating the salmon to their impact on the environment, Aquabounty was poised to become the world’s first company to sell fish whose DNA has been altered to speed up growth.












The Food and Drug Administration in 2010 concluded that Aquabounty’s salmon was as safe to eat as the traditional variety. The agency also said that there’s little chance that the salmon could escape and breed with wild fish, which could disrupt the fragile relationships between plants and animals in nature. But more than two years later the FDA has not approved the fish, and Aquabounty is running out of money.


“It’s threatening our very survival,” says CEO Ron Stotish, chief executive of the Maynard, Mass.-based company. “We only have enough money to survive until January 2013, so we have to raise more. But the unexplained delay has made raising money very difficult.”


The FDA says it’s still working on the final piece of its review, a report on the potential environmental impact of the salmon that must be published for comment before an approval can be issued. That means a final decision could be months, even years away. While the delay could mean that the faster-growing salmon will never wind up on American dinner tables, there’s more at stake than seafood.


Aquabounty is the only U.S. company publicly seeking approval for a genetically modified animal that’s raised to be eaten by humans. And scientists worry that its experience with the FDA’s lengthy review process could discourage other U.S. companies from investing in animal biotechnology, or the science of manipulating animal DNA to produce a desirable trait. That would put the U.S. at a disadvantage at a time when China, India and other foreign governments are pouring millions of dollars each year into the potentially lucrative field that could help reduce food costs and improve food safety.


Already, biotech scientists are changing their plans to avoid getting stuck in FDA-related regulatory limbo. Researchers at the University of California, Davis have transferred an experimental herd of genetically engineered goats that produce protein-enriched milk to Brazil, due to concerns about delays at the FDA. And after investors raised concerns about the slow pace of the FDA’s Aquabounty review, Canadian researchers in April pulled their FDA application for a biotech pig that would produce environmentally friendly waste.


“The story of Aquabounty is disappointing because everyone was hoping the company would be a clear signal that genetic modification in animals is now acceptable in the U.S.,” said Professor Helen Sang, a geneticist at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland who is working to develop genetically modified chickens that are resistant to bird flu. “Because it’s gotten so bogged down — and presumably cost AquaBounty a huge amount of money — I think people will be put off.”


AGAINST THE CURRENT


The science behind genetic modification is not new. Biotech scientists say that genetic manipulation is a proven way to reduce disease and enrich plants and animals, raising productivity and increasing the global food supply. Genetically modified corn, cotton and soybeans account for more than four-fifths of those crops grown in the U.S., according to the National Academies of Sciences.


But there have always been critics who are wary of tinkering with the genes of living animals. They say the risk is too great that modified organisms can escape into the wild and breed with native species. Not that we don’t already eat genetically altered animals. Researchers say the centuries-old practice of selective breeding is its own form of genetic engineering, producing the plumper cows, pigs and poultry we eat today.


“You drive a hybrid car because you want the most efficient vehicle you can have. So why wouldn’t you want the most efficient agriculture you can have?” asks Alison Van Eenennaam, a professor of animal science at University of California, Davis.


Aquabounty executives say their aim is to make the U.S. fish farming industry, or aquaculture, more efficient, environmentally friendly and profitable. After all, the U.S. imports about 86 percent of its seafood, in part, because it has a relatively small aquaculture industry. Aquaculture has faced pushback in the U.S. because of concerns about pollution from large fish pens in the ocean, which generate fish waste and leftover food.


Aquabounty executives figure that the U.S. aquaculture industry can be transformed by speeding up the growth of seafood. The company picked Atlantic salmon because they are the most widely consumed salmon in the U.S. and are farmed throughout the world: In 2010, the U.S. imported more than 200,000 tons of Atlantic salmon, worth over $ 1.5 billion, from countries like Norway, Canada and Chile.


Using gene-manipulating technology, Aquabounty adds a growth hormone to the Atlantic salmon from another type of salmon called the Chinook. The process, company executives say, causes its salmon to reach maturity in about two years, compared with three to four years for a conventional salmon.


Aquabounty executives say if their fish are approved for commercial sale, there are several safeguards designed to prevent the fish from escaping and breeding with wild salmon. The salmon are bred as sterile females. They also are confined to pools where the potential for escape would be low: The inland pens are isolated from natural bodies of water.


And the company says that these pens would be affordable thanks to the fast-growing nature of Aquabounty’s fish, which allows farmers to raise more salmon in less time. Overall, the company estimates that it would cost 30 percent less to grow its fish than traditional salmon.


TOUGH SALE


But getting the fish to market hasn’t been easy.


The company began discussions with the FDA in 1993. But the agency did not yet have a formal system for reviewing genetically modified food animals.


So Aquabounty spent the next decade conducting more than two dozen studies on everything from the molecular structure of the salmon’s DNA to the potential allergic reactions in humans who would eat it. By the time the FDA completed its roadmap for reviewing genetically modified animals in 2009, Aquabounty was the first company to submit its data.


After reviewing the company’s data, the FDA said in a public hearing in September of 2010 that Aquabounty’s salmon is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon.” The FDA also said the fish “are not expected to have a significant impact” on the environment.


But as the company has inched toward FDA approval it has faced increasing pushback from natural food advocates, environmentalists and politicians from salmon-producing states. In fact, following the FDA’s positive review of the fish, the House of Representatives passed a budget that included language barring the FDA from spending funds to approve a genetically engineered salmon.


“Frankenfish is uncertain and unnecessary,” said Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who authored the language. The Senate did not adopt the measure.


Despite such opposition, environmental groups such as the Food and Water Watch say that FDA approval seems inevitable. “We think there is a clear bias toward approving genetically modified animals within the FDA,” said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit that promotes environmentally friendly fishing and farming practices. “This thing is trapped in a regulatory process that is predisposed toward approving it.”


But the delay could cause Aquabounty to go bankrupt before its salmon reaches supermarkets.


Aquabounty, which started in 1991 focusing on proteins used to preserve human cells, changed direction after acquiring the rights to gene-manipulation technology from researchers at the University of Toronto and Memorial University of Newfoundland. Initial financing came from Boston-area investors and biotech-focused venture capital funds, but the company has burned through more than $ 67 million since it started.


According to its mid-year financial report, Aquabounty had less than $ 1.5 million in cash and stock. And it has no other products besides genetically modified salmon in development.


In February, the cash-strapped company agreed to sell its research and development arm to its largest single shareholder, Kakha Bendukidze, a former Republic of Georgia finance minister turned investor, in return for his help raising $ 2 million in cash to stay afloat. Aquabounty’s CEO Stotish fretted that Bendukidze, who controlled nearly 48 percent of Aquabounty’s public stock, would move the company overseas. But in October Bendukidze’s investment fund sold its shares to Intrexon, a biotech firm headquartered in Germantown, Md.


Stotish views the sale as a positive development, but he still worries that the U.S. government is unwilling to approve the technology at the heart of his company’s work.


“This is about more than Aquabounty and more than salmon,” Stotish says. “And shame on us if we allow this to slip away because of partisan bickering and people who oppose new technology.”


Health News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

UK economy ‘not as bad in 2012′













The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has increased its forecast for UK growth for 2012, but still expects the economy to shrink.












The UK will shrink by 0.1% this year, less than the 0.4% contraction it had predicted previously, the BCC said.


That is “entirely due to the stronger-than-expected” growth in the last quarter, helped by the Olympic Games.


But it now sees growth of 1% for the whole of 2013, down from the 1.2% it had forecast in September.


“As we wait in anticipation for the chancellor to deliver his Autumn Statement tomorrow, our new forecast highlights the challenges still facing the UK economy over the months and years ahead,” said John Longworth, director-general of the BCC.


“The fact remains that growth is still too weak. Thankfully, we have businesses here in the UK that are ambitious, determined and resilient.”


Chancellor George Osborne gives the Autumn Statement on Wednesday. Over the weekend, he admitted that curbing the UK’s financial deficit was “taking longer” than planned.


The BCC said that public sector borrowing would be £104.1bn for 2012/13 – more than £12bn higher that it had predicted in March.


“Many firms are expanding exports, investing, and creating jobs, but more must be done to support the aspirations of growing companies that will be the wealth creators of tomorrow,” Mr Longworth said.


Last month, it emerged that the UK economy had bounced back from recession in the three months to September.


The economy grew by 1.0%, after contracting for the previous nine months. The UK has still not recovered the levels of output seen before the financial crisis in 2008.


For 2014, the BCC cut the forecast to 1.8%, from 2.2%.


The BCC said that the lower GDP growth forecasts for 2013 and 2014 were due to the fact that the “international environment has worsened, as growth forecasts for world trade, for the eurozone, and for other major economies have been revised down in recent months” and that more spending cuts were likely in the UK.


BBC News – Business


Read More..

News Corp shutting down iPad newspaper ‘The Daily’ on December 15th












News Corp’s iPad newspaper “The Daily” is officially dead. Launched in February 2011, The Daily was a “ bold experiment in digital publishing and an amazing vehicle for innovation,” but like so many pioneering ideas, it “could not find a large enough audience quickly enough” to keep the publication going, according to Rupert Murdoch, the Chairman of News Corporation and Chairman and CEO of Fox Group. The Daily will officially cease publishing on December 15th and will see Jesse Angelo, its Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor of The New York Post move into the role of Publisher for the latter. The Daily was supposed to signal a new era of app-based interactive newspapers, but alas, in a world of Flipboard, Instapaper and social media, finding a new channel to distribute and aggregate news has proven to be challenging, even for corporations with plenty of resources.


Get more from BGR.com: Follow us on Twitter, Facebook












Gadgets News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Additional copies of ‘Lincoln’ headed to theaters












LOS ANGELES (AP) — “Lincoln” is marching to more movie theaters.


Disney, which distributed the DreamWorks film, is making additional prints of director Steven Spielberg‘s historical saga starring Daniel Day-Lewis to meet an unexpected demand that has left some moviegoers in Alaska out in the cold.












“To say that we’re encouraged by the results to date or that they’ve exceeded our expectations is an understatement,” said Dave Hollis, head of distribution at the Walt Disney Co. “We’re in the midst of making additional prints to accommodate demand and will have them available to our partners in exhibition by mid-December for what we hope will be a great run through the holiday and awards corridor.”


The film, which opened in wide release Nov. 9 and has earned $ 83.6 million in North America so far, has been unavailable at some smaller venues, such as the Gross Alaska theaters in Juneau.


But the extra prints are coming a little too late to fit the movie into the five-screen Glacier Cinemas theater during the holiday season, said Kenny Solomon-Gross, general manager of the Gross Alaska, which runs two theaters in Juneau and one in Ketchikan, Alaska.


“When we had the room for ‘Lincoln,’ Disney didn’t have a copy for us,” Solomon-Gross said Monday.


His film lineup is pretty booked through the end of the year, and he probably can’t screen “Lincoln” until after the first of the new year. Yes, the excitement over the film will have dimmed, but then the Academy Awards season will be stirring up, he said. That should kick up the buzz.


In the meantime, Solomon-Gross plans to head to Las Vegas this week and catch the film there.


___


Follow AP Entertainment Writer Derrik J. Lang on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/derrikjlang . Associated Press writer Rachel D’Oro in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report.


___


Online:


http://www.thelincolnmovie.com


Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Drug industry treading water on R&D productivity












LONDON (Reuters) – Drug companies are becoming more efficient in hunting for new treatments, though this has yet to be reflected in improved investment returns, according to a report on Tuesday.


Low productivity in research labs is the biggest single challenge facing the global pharmaceutical industry, which is struggling to replenish its medicine chest after a wave of patient expiries that peaked this year.












While companies are getting more compounds into late-stage development – reflecting a smarter and more targeted approach to research and development (R&D) – turning those new products into big commercial winners is an uphill struggle.


That reflects growing caution among governments about buying costly new drugs, as well as the arrival of more specialist products that address relatively small patient populations.


The latest annual study of R&D productivity by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters found that the number of new drug approvals increased by around 30 percent, yet the expected revenue from these medicines actually fell by a similar amount.


In total, the world’s 12 top pharmaceutical companies had 41 new drugs approved, with combined forecast revenues of $ 211 billion, while the year-earlier tally was 32 products with expected revenues of $ 309 billion.


In effect, the industry is treading water in the fight to deliver better returns on the billions of dollars ploughed into the hunt for new drugs each year.


With an average internal rate of return (IRR) from R&D in 2012 of 7.2 percent – against 7.7 percent and 10.5 percent in the two preceding years – Big Pharma is barely covering its average cost of capital, estimated at around 7 percent.


Nonetheless, there are some encouraging signs. In particular, 10 of the 12 companies tracked in the report showed an improvement in replenishing their stock of late-stage experimental drugs.


“We’ve seen returns stabilizing and there are signs on the horizon that the situation might turn around, depending on how successful the industry is at commercializing new assets as they come through,” said Julian Remnant, head of Deloitte’s European R&D advisory practice.


At $ 1.1 billion, the average cost of developing a new medicine has remained fairly constant, although it varies hugely between companies, since this figure includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail.


For the most successful company in the group, the average cost of developing a drug was just $ 315 million, while at the other extreme one firm spent $ 2.8 billion.


The companies analyzed in the study were Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Merck & Co, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda and Amgen.


The study calculated IRRs for these companies by estimating the future value of sales from products in final-stage Phase III clinical trials, or those submitted for regulatory approval, using standard industry benchmarks for success rates.


(Editing by Louise Heavens)


Medications/Drugs News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

The Cash-Only Doctors Club












An anxious woman in her mid-40s showed up last winter at Atlas MD, a family doctor’s office in Wichita. She had lost her job as a restaurant cook, and along with it her health insurance and her home. She needed to see a doctor.


Atlas MD isn’t a free clinic. It’s a concierge medical practice, which means you can’t get an appointment unless you pay cash. Atlas MD’s two physicians, Josh Umbehr and Doug Nunamaker, don’t accept insurance. Instead, they charge most of their adult patients $ 50 a month for unlimited visits. They also offer free EKGs and biopsies and cut-rate prices on prescription drugs. Two-thirds of their patients have insurance but feel the fee is well worth it for personalized service, including house calls, the doctor’s cell-phone number, and quick responses to e-mails and Twitter messages. The rest of Umbehr and Nunamaker’s clientele are uninsured. For those patients, Atlas is the only way of seeing a family doctor regularly. Contrary to those who say concierge doctors like themselves are getting rich by focusing on personalized care at a high price, Nunamaker and Umbehr, who are in their early 30s, contend that they can grow their practice by appealing to a broader clientele.












aa082  feature doctors49  05inline  405 The Cash Only Doctors Club


“I want to be one of the 1 percent,” says Umbehr, who likes to talk business as much as he does medicine; Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged inspired the name of his two-year-old practice. “But the problem with the 1 percent is there’s only 1 percent of them. If you want to build a business model that’s really far-reaching and world-changing, then it’s got to fit everybody.”


It was midway through the month when the homeless woman arrived at Atlas MD, so Nunamaker asked her for $ 25 and examined her immediately. She told him she was always tired and couldn’t keep a job. She was living in a storage shed. Nunamaker gave her a blood test, which revealed an extreme case of hypothyroidism. That explained her exhaustion. “I get why you are so fatigued,” he said. “Your thyroid isn’t working as well as it should.” He put her on medication that would boost the hormone her thyroid gland wasn’t producing and restore her vitality.


The woman stayed with Atlas MD for three months until she was feeling better. Then she left. Nunamaker gave her three months of inexpensive prescription refills and wished her well. He would have preferred to see her stay on. But he and Umbehr are proud that they were able to restore her health for $ 147, including tests and prescriptions. (They made money on her monthly retainer, but not on the tests and labs. Atlas MD provides them at cost.) They estimate that she would have paid as much as $ 1,500 if she had gone to a regular doctor. It was undeniably a good deal for her; had she required hospitalization, however, the bill would have been enormous and not covered by Atlas.


The Atlas MD doctors are eager to tell this story. They’re convinced that concierge medicine, often thought of as a luxury for the rich, is affordable for everyone and might even be the salvation of the American health-care system. “We’ve fixed health care,” Umbehr proclaims, later admitting that he tends to be “grandiose.”


The doctors at Atlas MD are among a growing number of physicians opting out of the traditional insurance-driven model. They see their older peers at traditional practices struggling to keep afloat at a time when administrative costs are rising and insurance payments have basically stayed flat. Many of these rebel doctors charge high fees and target the wealthy—visiting them at their homes, accompanying them to specialist visits, and offering them what they market as physicals fit for a CEO.


There are 4,400 concierge doctors in the U.S., 30 percent more than there were last year, according to the American Academy of Private Physicians, their professional association. “This is all doctors want to talk about,” says Jeff Goldsmith, a health-care industry analyst and trend spotter. “ ‘I want to go off the grid. I’m done billing Blue Cross. I can’t deal with this anymore. It’s destroying my life and my relationship with my patients.’ ”


Some health policymakers are encouraged by this trend. They think an increase of direct-pay doctors—especially affordable ones—could lead to better health care in the U.S., which has the highest costs and some of the worst outcomes of any wealthy nation. “I think it’s great,” says Kevin Schulman, a professor of medicine and business administration at Duke University. “We’re rediscovering that if we just ask people to pay for services, we could provide them with better value. Primary care is affordable.”


Others worry that the growth of concierge medicine will mean the affluent receive high-quality care while the rest of the country struggles to be seen by fewer and fewer doctors. “It is a step towards a two-tiered health-care system: a system where the rich get first-choice care and the not-so-rich get second-choice care,” says Kathleen Stoll, deputy executive director of Families USA, a health-care consumer advocacy group.


This much is certain: There will be greater demand for primary-care physicians because of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. “Love it or hate it,” Atlas MD’s Umbehr says of Obamacare, “it’s going to make it harder for you to see your doctor.”
 
 
Primary-care physicians have long complained of being the poor men of their industry. Their median salary is $ 160,000 a year—roughly half of an anesthesiologist’s—but rising overhead, more paperwork, and packed waiting rooms are propelling ever-greater numbers to shed patients and charge a retainer. In 2011 the average American medical practice spent $ 82,975 per doctor dealing with insurers, according to the Commonwealth Fund. That same doctor has 3,281 active patients over a three-year period, says the American Academy of Family Physicians. She rarely has time to see them for more than a few minutes. The attraction of concierge medicine for her isn’t hard to fathom: She can winnow down her patient roster, spend more time with each, and do away with her insurance-related headaches.


aa082  feature doctors49  03  inline405 The Cash Only Doctors ClubPhotograph by Ryan Lowry for Bloomberg BusinessweekPriority Physicians charges about $ 5,500 per patient per year for personalized service including house calls, prescription delivery, and unlimited face time


It will only become more enticing in 2014 when the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate requires everyone to be insured. The law will enable 30 million previously uninsured people to get coverage through an expansion of Medicaid. They’ll need primary care, but it’s not yet clear who will give it to them. By 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates, there will be 45,000 fewer primary-care doctors than the U.S. needs. “For the last 13 years, very few students have been going into it,” says Patrick Dowling, chairman of the department of family medicine at the University of California-Los Angeles’s David Geffen School of Medicine. “What motivates medical school students is income, just like everyone else.”


Proponents of concierge medicine insist that more time with each patient allows them to provide holistic care that can prevent diseases such as diabetes that are major drivers of health-care costs in America and keep people out of hospital emergency rooms. Garrison Bliss, co-founder of Qliance, a low-cost concierge medicine company based in Seattle, estimates that if everybody in the nation went to one of his doctors, the country would save $ 268 billion annually. In 2010, Qliance says, its clients visited emergency rooms 65 percent less than similar patients. Thirty-five percent fewer of them needed to be hospitalized. They required 66 percent fewer specialist visits.


But when doctors go the concierge route, they often reduce their patient roster as much as 80 percent, creating more scarcity. “There aren’t enough primary-care people around now,” says Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center. “When concierge practices spread, that means more and more people will be left without any access to primary care.”


It also affects other doctors. Russell Phillips is the director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care and a practicing physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “We have a handful of doctors affiliated with Beth Israel who have done this,” he says. “Every time it happens, it is an event. We have to figure who is going to take their patients.”


As consumer advocates and policymakers fret, concierge doctors are making money. Corporate interests are getting involved, too. In 2009, Procter & Gamble (PG) bought MDVIP, a national concierge medical franchise, for an undisclosed amount. Venture capitalists are investing in direct-pay practices, and private equity firms are interested. “When the private equity folks come to our conferences, they say the winds are in the sails of both supply and demand for private medicine,” says Tom Blue, executive director of the American Academy of Private Physicians. “That spells opportunity.”
 
 
It’s a Thursday morning in September, and Howard Maron, considered the father of concierge medicine by many, is sitting at a table in the Gallery restaurant at the Carlyle hotel on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. With his bushy white hair and a white mustache, the 61-year-old doctor looks like Ted Turner. He has a similar bravado. He went to UCLA Medical School. In 1980 he started a traditional primary-care practice in Seattle with three doctors. Maron had 3,000 patients. He says that as long as 30 of them were sick on a given day, his office was full, and he made money.


In 1982, Maron became the team physician for the Seattle SuperSonics. It wasn’t a full-time job. But when the team had away games, he tagged along and looked after the basketball players. Maron arranged for sick SuperSonics to see the best specialists wherever they were on their road trips. He would get players into hospitals under assumed names to keep them out of the papers. “It was spare-no-expense,” he says wistfully. “It was ‘Get it done and get it done right.’ ”


In 1996, Maron founded MD2 International, hoping to offer the same level of care to a select group of patients. He thought he could do this if he and his partner, Scott Hall, saw only 50 families. MD2 would charge them $ 25,000 a year. Maron says other Seattle physicians thought he was crazy: “They said, ‘Nobody is going to pay you.’ ”


Maron says he quickly attracted enough patients. “When you open up an office and you know that you’re going to be limited to only 50 families, the shoe is on the other foot,” he boasts. “They think they’re interviewing you, but you’re interviewing them. You want very special people because this is it. This is your cadre.”He decorated his office with marble bathrooms and antique sculpture. He gave clients lengthy physicals. He got them appointments to see the best specialists in Seattle. And his patients never had to fill out a form, because MD2 didn’t accept insurance. Maron compares the experience to traveling by private jet. “I fly private, too,” he adds.


Maron opened offices in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, and Portland, Ore. Much to his consternation, other concierge doctors emerged and charged less. “They dumbed the model down,” Maron grouses. “Really, the only person who has their finger on the pulse of this is me.”


aa082  feature doctors49  02  inline202 The Cash Only Doctors ClubRyan Lowry for Bloomberg BusinessweekCraig Veatch


In 2002, Craig Veatch and Matthew Priddy of Priority Physicians started tending to patients in Indianapolis with substantial incomes. Each saw no more than 200 patients and charged most adults $ 5,500 a year. “We knew there were people out in Seattle charging $ 10,000 to $ 25,000 a year,” says Veatch. “We just felt that the cost of living is a little bit lower in the Midwest.”


The doctors at Priority Physicians also refuse insurance, but they do make house calls. They drive their patients to the hospital when they need surgery. (Patients use their insurance to pay for visits to specialists and hospitals.) They even make pharmacy runs for them.


They also insist their services are not exclusively for the well-heeled. “We have patients who say, “I’ll forgo an extra vacation so I can come and see you,” says Shelagh Fraser, a doctor who joined Priority in 2006. “I mean, we certainly have some very wealthy patients,” Priddy adds. “But we have many patients whom you would consider middle class who employ our services instead of lease a BMW for $ 800 a month. They just drive a cheaper car.”


Last year, Tim Herd, chief executive of a local property and casualty insurance company, came to Priority Physicians for a flu shot. He brought his two children, who are in college. They marveled at the plush carpets, heavy wooden doors, and black leather sofas in the exam rooms. “My kids said, ‘Dad, no wonder you like this place. It’s like the Four Seasons of doctors’ offices,’ ” Herd chuckles.


Practices offering cheaper models sprang up elsewhere. The largest is MDVIP, headquartered in Boca Raton, Fla., and founded in 2000. Each MDVIP doctor can have 600 patients. “Six hundred is really the maximum that you could have to provide that annual exam and follow up,” says MDVIP President Mark Murrison. MDVIP charges an average annual fee of $ 1,650. It also bills insurance companies for procedures. It has 580 doctors in 40 states and 200,000 patients. MDVIP also has an aggressive growth strategy: It says it recruits older doctors willing to shed many patients and tend to those who pay extra. Some people find this approach ethically dubious. “There has been a long-standing prohibition within the medical profession against abandonment,” says NYU’s Caplan. “Once you have a long-term relationship with a patient, you are supposed to stick with them or find them someone else.”


MDVIP says its physicians try hard to place former patients. Still, some of them feel burned. In a letter published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal after a local practitioner joined MDVIP, one ex-patient asked, “What happened to the Hippocratic Oath?”
 
 
Some doctors had a more egalitarian vision for concierge medicine. One of them was Bliss, who practiced with Maron before Maron departed to create MD2. “Howard went off and started his practice for $ 25,000 a year per patient,” Bliss says. “You know, by invitation only? I didn’t have any interest in that. Why would I want to take care of 50 rich families?”


aa082  feature doctorschart49 405b The Cash Only Doctors Club


A self-described liberal in medical school who didn’t care about business, Bliss sat down with his spreadsheets and came up with a different model for Seattle Medical Associates, which he founded in 1981 and reopened in 1997. The new practice didn’t take insurance. Instead, the highest price he and his partner, Mitchell Karton, charged was $ 65 a month. Each doctor could see 800 patients.


In 2007, Bliss was restless. One of his patients, a venture capitalist, urged him to create a company that could expand nationally. So he started Qliance, a concierge medicine provider with five offices in Washington State. Qliance, which has since raised $ 17 million in venture capital, still charges most patients $ 65 a month. Its 5,000 clients include truck drivers, grocery store clerks, and other blue-collar workers. They can contact their doctor at any hour. When they visit an office, they are guaranteed at least half an hour with their doctor. Like wealthy patients at a pricier concierge practice, Qliance’s patrons often have insurance, but are willing to pay extra for convenience.


“One time my old doctor was giving me a physical,” says Jed Aldridge, a retired 65-year-old firefighter and Qliance patient who lives in a Seattle suburb. “After 10 minutes he looked at his watch and said, ‘Our 15 minutes are almost up.’ Are you kidding? I’m getting older. I have more than 15 minutes of medical issues to talk about.” Aldridge says he never feels rushed now.


Meanwhile, in Wichita, Atlas MD began collecting $ 50 a month for most patients in 2010. Umbehr and Nunamaker say they can charge a fraction of what other concierge doctors ask because they run a lean operation. They need no office manager to handle insurance, and the only other employee is Jeannie O’Callaghan, a registered nurse. The doctors often answer the phone themselves. They make coffee and wipe off the counters.


Both occasionally work in the emergency room at a local hospital to cover their startup costs. Still, each expects to make $ 200,000 this year. “The math does work out,” Umbehr says. “Some of the people we went to medical school with are coming out and signing $ 140,000-a-year contracts with hospitals.”


On a Monday morning in October, Umbehr and Nunamaker are sitting in their expansive, high-ceilinged waiting room. It’s almost 9 a.m., a time when most physicians’ offices are bustling with patients. Atlas MD is strangely peaceful. The first patient visit isn’t scheduled for another half-hour.


Nunamaker and Umbehr spend much of their time interacting with their patients online, and on this day, Nunamaker is trading e-mails with a woman whose son has strep throat. He holds up a fairly gruesome image on his iPhone of the child’s throat. “Enlarged tonsils, pus pockets, sore throat, a fever,” he says. There’s no reason for the mother to bring her sick child into the office to hear that he needs a stronger antibiotic. He can handle that digitally. Umbehr shares an even more unsettling phone image, a boy with an eye infection. He has been corresponding with the boy’s mother and decides the infection isn’t serious. He says the mother manages a call center and can’t afford to leave work. He e-mails a prescription to a Walgreens (WAG) near her job. That way, she can pick up the medication on her lunch hour. “She’s making $ 24,000 a year and has a concierge doctor,” Umbehr boasts.


The question is whether such inexpensive concierge care can be a model for everybody. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former White House health-care policy adviser and one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, doesn’t think so. “The problem is, it excludes specialty care, complex diagnostics, hospitalization,” he says. “People need insurance. They need the whole product.”


Conceding the point, some of the more forward thinkers in the concierge movement are trying to figure out how to build a new model for primary care by combining their services along with insurance. In 2012 the average premium for an employer-provided insurance policy for a family of four climbed to a record high of $ 20,728, according to Milliman, a health-care consultancy. What if families could purchase cheap concierge care from a provider like Atlas MD and supplement it with lower-priced insurance? Wouldn’t there be a cost savings? “Health insurance should work more like car insurance,” says Umbehr. “We have car insurance for all the big stuff, but we pay for gas, tires, and oil changes ourselves.”


Qliance just launched a pilot program with Cigna (CI) that does something like that. Meanwhile, Bliss has pitched a plan to help Medicare save money. “We’d love to do that,” he says. “We think we could do it for $ 100 per patient and save them 20 to 30 percent of their health-care costs. But Medicare won’t recognize us.”


Traditional high-priced concierge doctors would be well advised to pay attention. If they turn away too many patients in the middle of a doctor shortage, they may risk a political backlash and increased regulation. Nobody in the profession is more worried about this than its founder, Howard Maron. “Guess who is going to be the victim of the blame game?” he warns. “Doctors who have opted out, doctors who refuse to see patients. Who is that? Us.”


Businessweek.com — Top News


Read More..