ライフサイエンスコーパス: employer

1 limited to the health plans offered by their employer.

2 er 1998 as part of a program sponsored by an employer.

3 apitation plan with financial savings by the employer.

4 d for these factors and also for the type of employer.

5 m the perspective of the new nurse and their employer.

6 nightshifts and length of time with current employer.

7 reference pricing by an alliance of private employers.

8 health insurance paid for by private-sector employers.

9 Americans received health insurance through employers.

10 r essential elements of health care value to employers.

11 easing operating and maintenance expenses of employers.

12 tages in the eyes of prospective editors and employers.

13 activity and resilience; qualities valued by employers.

14 ld yield a positive return on investment for employers.

15 f genetic information by health insurers and employers.

16 m clinicians, family, friends, educators, or employers.

17 program on workplace outcomes, a concern to employers.

18 elated strategies are reported being used by employers.

19 A total of 69,219 subjects participated (481 employers, 1,481 cities, 64 countries, all populated con

20 s: (1) premium quality of care, (2) a single employer, (3) a somewhat uniform practice culture, (4) h

21 health insurance paid for by private-sector employers, 34.2 percent (90 percent confidence interval,

22 y expressing reluctance to permit testing if employers (93/117; 79.5%), health insurers (90/117; 76.9

23 after breast cancer diagnosis, and perceived employer accommodation (odds ratio = 2.3; 95% CI, 1.06 t

24 tio = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99), perceived employer accommodation for cancer illness and treatment

25 rviews with executives at 609 of the largest employers across 41 US markets between July 2005 and Mar

26 rthritis-related LPT and offer employees and employers an effective return on health care use.

27 epression employed in the previous week cost employers an estimated 44 billion dollars per year in LP

28 ranking based on an aggregate of Health Plan Employer and Data Information Set (HEDIS) measures after

29 rformance measure as part of the Health Plan Employer and Data Information Set (HEDIS) that appears t

30 utcome was total claims payments (the sum of employer and employee spending for each claim) for labor

31 The financial effect on the employer and the satisfaction of patients and physicians

32 The study involved seven employers and a total of 90,005 adult enrollees.

33 d expenditures for behavioral health care by employers and behavioral health care patients in a large

34 er students to schools, healthier workers to employers and businesses, and a healthier population to

35 tions seeking to be inclusive and challenges employers and educators to acknowledge inequalities and

36 and quality of care, and negative impact on employers and employees.

37 they make workplaces safer at little cost to employers and employees.

38 urance is provided by third parties, such as employers and governments, in the Swiss system, individu

39 rising rapidly for working-aged adults, many employers and health insurance providers have changed be

40 Many employers and health plans have adopted 3-tier formulari

41 Many employers and health plans have adopted incentive-based

42 Employers and Occupational Health Services need this inf

43 st programs are to occur in ambulatory care, employers and other health care purchasers must be proac

44 employment may be of particular interest to employers and other stakeholders.

45 disability discrimination and apply to some employers and others not regulated by federal law.

46 rvices, whereas economic savings are made by employers and society.

47 insurance overemphasize the role of private employers and underestimate the extent to which governme

48 al socio-economic impacts for workers, their employers and wider society.

49 ividuals from two groups (males and females, employers and workers) would like to form a long-term re

50 xperience, career inactivity, years with the employer, and responsibilities at work, among other fact

51 ricts access to medical records by insurers, employers, and clinical researchers.

52 Rather, payers, employers, and patients themselves demand evidence that

53 favorably received by patients, physicians, employers, and society as well as payers.

54 Instead, employers are decreasing coverage and creating a market

55 Employers are playing an increasingly influential role i

56 nt insurance such as Medicare, workers whose employers arranged their insurance but contributed nothi

57 Surveyed employers as a whole do not appear to be individually im

58 e Advantage enrollees with stable, uncapped, employer-based drug coverage throughout the study period

59 ces, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health car

60 urance claims database from a large national employer-based health plan was obtained.

61 population-based cohort from a nationwide US employer-based insurance claims database from January 1,

62 Employer-based interventions may be effective in improvi

63 ol risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a s

64 rs of age who voluntarily participated in an employer-based screening-colonoscopy program.

65 f care at significantly lower costs than the employer-based US system and without the constrained res

66 We examined employer-based wellness program to determine health habi

67 ough such settings are designed to encourage employer behavior in the northwest corner of Homo econom

68 That is, employers biased against women are less likely to take i

69 in their specialty certificate by at least 1 employer, but only approximately one third of those who

70 ous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, we find that black applicants

71 er they are due to limited practice support, employer constraints, or other causes remains to be dete

72 Employers could continue to offer employment-based cover

73 rnment agencies, colleges, the military, and employers could improve public health by initiating educ

74 Employers, courts, and the general public judge the cred

75 The Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) has expanded,

76 The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) is described i

77 h professional organizations and is a Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) performance me

78 easuring patient monitoring: the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality-of-car

79 ce organizations participating in the Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS), covering 73 m

80 uality-of-care measures from the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

81 alth care performance measures in the Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

82 report performance data for the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS).

83 The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set and the Council of Sta

84 performed using individual-level Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data.

85 The time devoted to these tasks was employer dependent, and workplaces shaped the scale and

86 o = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 4.8), and perceived employer discrimination because of a cancer diagnosis (o

87 In addition, perceived employer discrimination because of cancer was negatively

88 part to their condition), costs are borne by employers due to lost productivity, absences, underperfo

89 tary costs and monetary benefits accruing to employers during a 5-year time horizon.

90 rance company (ie, insurance funded by joint employer-employee contributions).

91 Under reference pricing, the insurer or employer establishes a maximum contribution it will make

92 Employers' evaluations are colored by the candidate's ph

93 Compared with controls, randomly inspected employers experienced a 9.4% decline in injury rates (95

94 A majority of the LPT costs that employers face from employee depression is invisible and

95 Support from employers, family/carers and the state/health services a

96 y turnover predictors will be informative to employers for prioritizing strategies to retain their re

97 Employers frequently ask physicians to conduct medical e

98 strophic plan and in whether the employee or employer funds the MSA.

99 In this context, employers, government payers, and health plans are estab

100 managed care plans and other groups such as employers, government, and professional associations.

101 izations can be made more accountable to the employer groups that hire them.

102 though a small group of the largest national employers has been actively engaged in promoting quality

103 Value-based purchasing by employers has often been portrayed as the lynchpin to qu

104 dence to suggest that company performance on employer health management scorecards is associated with

105 an insurance claims database of self-insured employer health plans (n=2,285) in the US.

106 the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, practitio

107 However, few employers, health plans, or government programs have att

108 local market constituencies, but to national employers, health plans, provider organizations, and the

109 health insurance paid for by private-sector employers if they had no public insurance coverage and w

110 place wellness recognition program to assist employers in applying the best systems and strategies fo

111 sociation will develop resources that assist employers in meeting these rigorous standards, facilitat

112 The financial value of the latter to employers in terms of recovered hiring, training, and sa

113 nsurance was paid for in whole or in part by employers in the private sector and the number receiving

114 Employee records from multiple large employers in the United States were obtained from the Hu

115 ciary obligations of professionals and their employer-institutions to their mutual patients may be at

116 e and presymptomatic genetic test results to employers, insurers, and others.

117 Employer interest in workplace costs of mood disorders s

118 ess trials are needed to study the return on employer investment of coordinated programs for workplac

119 ADA in 1991, the author described respondent employers, issues in dispute, and outcomes of charges.

120 ndividuals for 1 year before and after their employers mandated a switch from a traditional health ma

121 t decade, hospitals have increasingly become employers of physicians.

122 t decade, hospitals have increasingly become employers of physicians.

123 Employers often make payment contingent on performance i

124 ts report that MOC is required by 1 of their employers, only one third of those who participate in th

125 cian relationships, regardless of changes in employers or in work status.

126 gender, body mass index, years with current employer, or years in practice.

127 The cost of depression to employers, particularly the cost in lost work days, is a

128 Bottom-up cost analyses from the employer perspective supplied data on inpatient and outp

129 mpared with antidepressant users enrolled in employer plans that had not implemented step therapy.

130 databases, antidepressant users enrolled in employer plans that implemented antidepressant step ther

131 Government agencies recommend that employers prevent violence against workers by adopting i

132 alf (46%) of respondents reported that their employer provided lifts.

133 ug spending among working-age enrollees with employer-provided drug coverage.

134 n-based study using claims from a nationwide employer-provided health insurance plan in the United St

135 nder 18 years old enrolled in a nation-wide, employer-provided insurance plan.

136 mpact on health care costs of Americans with employer-provided insurance.

137 that offers screening services as part of an employer-provided wellness program.

138 significantly improve treatment quality, but employer purchasers have been slow to adopt these progra

139 Spurred by demands for data from employer-purchasers and accreditation agencies and the a

140 Of 1041 companies contacted, 609 employer representatives completed the survey (response

141 Two large employers represented in multiple market areas across th

142 gram participation, it is less clear whether employers' requirements are an equally compelling extern

143 hanging practice patterns as physicians age, employer restrictions, or generational choices.

144 ed with 3-tier formulary implementation by 1 employer resulted in lower total ADHD medication spendin

145 A secondary cost-benefit analysis from the employer's perspective tracked monetary costs and moneta

146 From the employer's perspective, enhanced depression care yields

147 and the impact of hospitalist programs on an employer's sense of health care value is predicted to be

148 , 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.67; no insurance v employer-/school-sponsored insurance) or quit working di

149 Employers seem to have a pivotal role in breast cancer p

150 Employers should also be allowed to participate in these

151 eneficiaries; however, many individuals with employer-sponsored coverage and those with higher costs

152 (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.88) vs those with employer-sponsored coverage.

153 prescription drugs compared with those with employer-sponsored drug coverage (7.9% vs 1.7%; adjusted

154 h no drug coverage to 27.4% in patients with employer-sponsored drug coverage (P<.001).

155 amilies, but millions of dependents for whom employer-sponsored family coverage is unaffordable could

156 Data on the effectiveness of employer-sponsored financial incentives for employee wei

157 her these ideas have significantly permeated employer-sponsored health benefit purchasing.

158 are patients in a large national database of employer-sponsored health insurance claims.

159 of poverty, not covered by current public or employer-sponsored health insurance.

160 utilization of and spending on drugs in two employer-sponsored health plans that implemented changes

161 f age (10,654 adults and 2617 children) with employer-sponsored insurance who obtained health care th

162 tenance organization, $5492 among those with employer-sponsored insurance, $5670 among those with Med

163 for medical interventions usually covered by employer-sponsored insurance.

164 ), covered by Medicaid (2723), or covered by employer-sponsored private insurance (4256) for 1 full y

165 hose drug benefits were unlimited because of employer supplements.

166 Enrollees covered by the employer that implemented more dramatic changes experien

167 The enrollees covered by the employer that implemented more moderate changes were mor

168 ing and resource use by a large self-insured employer that reduced statin copayments for patients wit

169 Working for an employer that sustained fatalities also increased risk.

170 tive impact of employee health care costs on employers, the government budgetary problems caused by r

171 Managed care embodies an effort by employers, the insurance industry, and some elements of

172 n the minds of depositing researchers, their employers, their funders, and other researchers who seek

173 (3) Involve employers to promote health in the workplace and provide

174 espondents; 16% [95% CI, 9%-23%]) or used by employers to reward performance (8 respondents; 2% [95%

175 The probable perspective of large employers toward the phenomenon of hospitalists can be d

176 he study period, and 87% reported that their employer was accommodating to their cancer illness and t

177 18 months after implementation, spending for employers was $1.34 million lower and the amount of copa

178 nt and radiation monitoring data supplied by employers was linked to each pregnancy.

179 xed "basket" of asthma medications across 37 employers, we estimated multivariate models of asthma me

180 Using the Dun & Bradstreet database of US employers, we identified the 26 largest firms in each ma

181 covered by insurance from a non-governmental employer who paid all or part of their premiums.

182 who were insured in the United States by 18 employers who provided a price transparency platform to

183 Employers will have to offer flexible working practices

184 raining, and salary costs suggests that many employers would experience a positive return on investme