Buy real lasix online

Enrolling in buy real lasix online an MSP - Automatic Enrollment &. Applications for People who Have Medicare What is Application Process?. 6.

Enrolling in an MSP for People age 65+ who buy real lasix online Do Not Qualify for Free Medicare Part A - the "Part A Buy-In Program" 7. What Happens After MSP Approved - How Part B Premium is Paid 8 Special Rules for QMBs - How Medicare Cost-Sharing Works 1. NO ASSET LIMIT!.

Since April 1, 2008, none of the three MSP programs have resource limits in New York -- which means many Medicare beneficiaries buy real lasix online who might not qualify for Medicaid because of excess resources can qualify for an MSP. 1.A. SUMMARY CHART OF MSP BENEFITS QMB SLIMB QI-1 Eligibility ASSET LIMIT NO LIMIT IN NEW YORK STATE INCOME LIMIT (2020) Single Couple Single Couple Single Couple $1,064 $1,437 $1,276 $1,724 $1,436 $1,940 Federal Poverty Level 100% FPL 100 – 120% FPL 120 – 135% FPL Benefits Pays Monthly Part B premium?.

YES, and also Part A premium if did not have buy real lasix online enough work quarters and meets citizenship requirement. See “Part A Buy-In” YES YES Pays Part A &. B deductibles &.

Co-insurance YES - with limitations NO buy real lasix online NO Retroactive to Filing of Application?. Yes - Benefits begin the month after the month of the MSP application. 18 NYCRR §360-7.8(b)(5) Yes – Retroactive to 3rd month before month of application, if eligible in prior months Yes – may be retroactive to 3rd month before month of applica-tion, but only within the current calendar year.

(No retro for January buy real lasix online application). See GIS 07 MA 027. Can Enroll in MSP and Medicaid at Same Time?.

YES YES NO! buy real lasix online. Must choose between QI-1 and Medicaid. Cannot have both, not even Medicaid with a spend-down.

2 buy real lasix online. INCOME LIMITS and RULES Each of the three MSP programs has different income eligibility requirements and provides different benefits. The income limits are tied to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

2019 FPL buy real lasix online levels were released by NYS DOH in GIS 20 MA/02 - 2020 Federal Poverty Levels -- Attachment II and have been posted by Medicaid.gov and the National Council on Aging and are in the chart below. NOTE. There is usually a lag in time of several weeks, or even months, from January 1st of each year until the new FPLs are release, and then before the new MSP income limits are officially implemented.

During this lag period, local Medicaid offices should continue to use the previous year's FPLs AND count the person's Social Security benefit amount from the buy real lasix online previous year - do NOT factor in the Social Security COLA (cost of living adjustment). Once the updated guidelines are released, districts will use the new FPLs and go ahead and factor in any COLA. See 2019 Fact Sheet on MSP in NYS by Medicare Rights Center ENGLISH SPANISH Income is determined by the same methodology as is used for determining in eligibility for SSI The rules for counting income for SSI-related (Aged 65+, Blind, or Disabled) Medicaid recipients, borrowed from the SSI program, apply to the MSP program, except for the new rules about counting household size for married couples.

N.Y buy real lasix online. Soc. Serv.

L. 367-a(3)(c)(2), NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7, 89-ADM-7 p.7. Gross income is counted, although there are certain types of income that are disregarded.

The most common income disregards, also known as deductions, include. (a) The first $20 of your &. Your spouse's monthly income, earned or unearned ($20 per couple max).

(b) SSI EARNED INCOME DISREGARDS. * The first $65 of monthly wages of you and your spouse, * One-half of the remaining monthly wages (after the $65 is deducted). * Other work incentives including PASS plans, impairment related work expenses (IRWEs), blind work expenses, etc.

For information on these deductions, see The Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities (MBI-WPD) and other guides in this article -- though written for the MBI-WPD, the work incentives apply to all Medicaid programs, including MSP, for people age 65+, disabled or blind. (c) monthly cost of any health insurance premiums but NOT the Part B premium, since Medicaid will now pay this premium (may deduct Medigap supplemental policies, vision, dental, or long term care insurance premiums, and the Part D premium but only to the extent the premium exceeds the Extra Help benchmark amount) (d) Food stamps not counted. You can get a more comprehensive listing of the SSI-related income disregards on the Medicaid income disregards chart.

As for all benefit programs based on financial need, it is usually advantageous to be considered a larger household, because the income limit is higher. The above chart shows that Households of TWO have a higher income limit than households of ONE. The MSP programs use the same rules as Medicaid does for the Disabled, Aged and Blind (DAB) which are borrowed from the SSI program for Medicaid recipients in the “SSI-related category.” Under these rules, a household can be only ONE or TWO.

18 NYCRR 360-4.2. See DAB Household Size Chart. Married persons can sometimes be ONE or TWO depending on arcane rules, which can force a Medicare beneficiary to be limited to the income limit for ONE person even though his spouse who is under 65 and not disabled has no income, and is supported by the client applying for an MSP.

EXAMPLE. Bob's Social Security is $1300/month. He is age 67 and has Medicare.

His wife, Nancy, is age 62 and is not disabled and does not work. Under the old rule, Bob was not eligible for an MSP because his income was above the Income limit for One, even though it was well under the Couple limit. In 2010, NYS DOH modified its rules so that all married individuals will be considered a household size of TWO.

DOH GIS 10 MA 10 Medicare Savings Program Household Size, June 4, 2010. This rule for household size is an exception to the rule applying SSI budgeting rules to the MSP program. Under these rules, Bob is now eligible for an MSP.

When is One Better than Two?. Of course, there may be couples where the non-applying spouse's income is too high, and disqualifies the applying spouse from an MSP. In such cases, "spousal refusal" may be used SSL 366.3(a).

(Link is to NYC HRA form, can be adapted for other counties). 3. The Three Medicare Savings Programs - what are they and how are they different?.

1. Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB). The QMB program provides the most comprehensive benefits.

Available to those with incomes at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), the QMB program covers virtually all Medicare cost-sharing obligations. Part B premiums, Part A premiums, if there are any, and any and all deductibles and co-insurance. QMB coverage is not retroactive.

The program’s benefits will begin the month after the month in which your client is found eligible. ** See special rules about cost-sharing for QMBs below - updated with new CMS directive issued January 2012 ** See NYC HRA QMB Recertification form ** Even if you do not have Part A automatically, because you did not have enough wages, you may be able to enroll in the Part A Buy-In Program, in which people eligible for QMB who do not otherwise have Medicare Part A may enroll, with Medicaid paying the Part A premium (Materials by the Medicare Rights Center). 2.

Specifiedl Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB). For those with incomes between 100% and 120% FPL, the SLMB program will cover Part B premiums only. SLMB is retroactive, however, providing coverage for three months prior to the month of application, as long as your client was eligible during those months.

3. Qualified Individual (QI-1). For those with incomes between 120% and 135% FPL, and not receiving Medicaid, the QI-1 program will cover Medicare Part B premiums only.

QI-1 is also retroactive, providing coverage for three months prior to the month of application, as long as your client was eligible during those months. However, QI-1 retroactive coverage can only be provided within the current calendar year. (GIS 07 MA 027) So if you apply in January, you get no retroactive coverage.

Q-I-1 recipients would be eligible for Medicaid with a spend-down, but if they want the Part B premium paid, they must choose between enrolling in QI-1 or Medicaid. They cannot be in both. It is their choice.

DOH MRG p. 19. In contrast, one may receive Medicaid and either QMB or SLIMB.

4. Four Special Benefits of MSPs (in addition to NO ASSET TEST). Benefit 1.

Back Door to Medicare Part D "Extra Help" or Low Income Subsidy -- All MSP recipients are automatically enrolled in Extra Help, the subsidy that makes Part D affordable. They have no Part D deductible or doughnut hole, the premium is subsidized, and they pay very low copayments. Once they are enrolled in Extra Help by virtue of enrollment in an MSP, they retain Extra Help for the entire calendar year, even if they lose MSP eligibility during that year.

The "Full" Extra Help subsidy has the same income limit as QI-1 - 135% FPL. However, many people may be eligible for QI-1 but not Extra Help because QI-1 and the other MSPs have no asset limit. People applying to the Social Security Administration for Extra Help might be rejected for this reason.

Recent (2009-10) changes to federal law called "MIPPA" requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to share eligibility data with NYSDOH on all persons who apply for Extra Help/ the Low Income Subsidy. Data sent to NYSDOH from SSA will enable NYSDOH to open MSP cases on many clients. The effective date of the MSP application must be the same date as the Extra Help application.

Signatures will not be required from clients. In cases where the SSA data is incomplete, NYSDOH will forward what is collected to the local district for completion of an MSP application. The State implementing procedures are in DOH 2010 ADM-03.

Also see CMS "Dear State Medicaid Director" letter dated Feb. 18, 2010 Benefit 2. MSPs Automatically Waive Late Enrollment Penalties for Part B Generally one must enroll in Part B within the strict enrollment periods after turning age 65 or after 24 months of Social Security Disability.

An exception is if you or your spouse are still working and insured under an employer sponsored group health plan, or if you have End Stage Renal Disease, and other factors, see this from Medicare Rights Center. If you fail to enroll within those short periods, you might have to pay higher Part B premiums for life as a Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP). Also, you may only enroll in Part B during the Annual Enrollment Period from January 1 - March 31st each year, with Part B not effective until the following July.

Enrollment in an MSP automatically eliminates such penalties... For life.. Even if one later ceases to be eligible for the MSP.

AND enrolling in an MSP will automatically result in becoming enrolled in Part B if you didn't already have it and only had Part A. See Medicare Rights Center flyer. Benefit 3.

No Medicaid Lien on Estate to Recover MSP Benefits Paid Generally speaking, states may place liens on the Estates of deceased Medicaid recipients to recover the cost of Medicaid services that were provided after the recipient reached the age of 55. Since 2002, states have not been allowed to recover the cost of Medicare premiums paid under MSPs. In 2010, Congress expanded protection for MSP benefits.

Beginning on January 1, 2010, states may not place liens on the Estates of Medicaid recipients who died after January 1, 2010 to recover costs for co-insurance paid under the QMB MSP program for services rendered after January 1, 2010. The federal government made this change in order to eliminate barriers to enrollment in MSPs. See NYS DOH GIS 10-MA-008 - Medicare Savings Program Changes in Estate Recovery The GIS clarifies that a client who receives both QMB and full Medicaid is exempt from estate recovery for these Medicare cost-sharing expenses.

Benefit 4. SNAP (Food Stamp) benefits not reduced despite increased income from MSP - at least temporarily Many people receive both SNAP (Food Stamp) benefits and MSP. Income for purposes of SNAP/Food Stamps is reduced by a deduction for medical expenses, which includes payment of the Part B premium.

Since approval for an MSP means that the client no longer pays for the Part B premium, his/her SNAP/Food Stamps income goes up, so their SNAP/Food Stamps go down. Here are some protections. Do these individuals have to report to their SNAP worker that their out of pocket medical costs have decreased?.

And will the household see a reduction in their SNAP benefits, since the decrease in medical expenses will increase their countable income?. The good news is that MSP households do NOT have to report the decrease in their medical expenses to the SNAP/Food Stamp office until their next SNAP/Food Stamp recertification. Even if they do report the change, or the local district finds out because the same worker is handling both the MSP and SNAP case, there should be no reduction in the household’s benefit until the next recertification.

New York’s SNAP policy per administrative directive 02 ADM-07 is to “freeze” the deduction for medical expenses between certification periods. Increases in medical expenses can be budgeted at the household’s request, but NYS never decreases a household’s medical expense deduction until the next recertification. Most elderly and disabled households have 24-month SNAP certification periods.

Eventually, though, the decrease in medical expenses will need to be reported when the household recertifies for SNAP, and the household should expect to see a decrease in their monthly SNAP benefit. It is really important to stress that the loss in SNAP benefits is NOT dollar for dollar. A $100 decrease in out of pocket medical expenses would translate roughly into a $30 drop in SNAP benefits.

See more info on SNAP/Food Stamp benefits by the Empire Justice Center, and on the State OTDA website. Some clients will be automatically enrolled in an MSP by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) shortly after attaining eligibility for Medicare. Others need to apply.

The 2010 "MIPPA" law introduced some improvements to increase MSP enrollment. See 3rd bullet below. Also, some people who had Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act before they became eligible for Medicare have special procedures to have their Part B premium paid before they enroll in an MSP.

See below. WHO IS AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN AN MSP. Clients receiving even $1.00 of Supplemental Security Income should be automatically enrolled into a Medicare Savings Program (most often QMB) under New York State’s Medicare Savings Program Buy-in Agreement with the federal government once they become eligible for Medicare.

They should receive Medicare Parts A and B. Clients who are already eligible for Medicare when they apply for Medicaid should be automatically assessed for MSP eligibility when they apply for Medicaid. (NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 and GIS 05 MA 033).

Clients who apply to the Social Security Administration for Extra Help, but are rejected, should be contacted &. Enrolled into an MSP by the Medicaid program directly under new MIPPA procedures that require data sharing. Strategy TIP.

Since the Extra Help filing date will be assigned to the MSP application, it may help the client to apply online for Extra Help with the SSA, even knowing that this application will be rejected because of excess assets or other reason. SSA processes these requests quickly, and it will be routed to the State for MSP processing. Since MSP applications take a while, at least the filing date will be retroactive.

Note. The above strategy does not work as well for QMB, because the effective date of QMB is the month after the month of application. As a result, the retroactive effective date of Extra Help will be the month after the failed Extra Help application for those with QMB rather than SLMB/QI-1.

Applying for MSP Directly with Local Medicaid Program. Those who do not have Medicaid already must apply for an MSP through their local social services district. (See more in Section D.

Below re those who already have Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act before they became eligible for Medicare. If you are applying for MSP only (not also Medicaid), you can use the simplified MSP application form (theDOH-4328(Rev. 8/2017-- English) (2017 Spanish version not yet available).

Either application form can be mailed in -- there is no interview requirement anymore for MSP or Medicaid. See 10 ADM-04. Applicants will need to submit proof of income, a copy of their Medicare card (front &.

Back), and proof of residency/address. See the application form for other instructions. One who is only eligible for QI-1 because of higher income may ONLY apply for an MSP, not for Medicaid too.

One may not receive Medicaid and QI-1 at the same time. If someone only eligible for QI-1 wants Medicaid, s/he may enroll in and deposit excess income into a pooled Supplemental Needs Trust, to bring her countable income down to the Medicaid level, which also qualifies him or her for SLIMB or QMB instead of QI-1. Advocates in NYC can sign up for a half-day "Deputization Training" conducted by the Medicare Rights Center, at which you'll be trained and authorized to complete an MSP application and to submit it via the Medicare Rights Center, which submits it to HRA without the client having to apply in person.

Enrolling in an MSP if you already have Medicaid, but just become eligible for Medicare Those who, prior to becoming enrolled in Medicare, had Medicaid through Affordable Care Act are eligible to have their Part B premiums paid by Medicaid (or the cost reimbursed) during the time it takes for them to transition to a Medicare Savings Program. In 2018, DOH clarified that reimbursement of the Part B premium will be made regardless of whether the individual is still in a Medicaid managed care (MMC) plan. GIS 18 MA/001 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare ( PDF) provides, "Due to efforts to transition individuals who gain Medicare eligibility and who require LTSS, individuals may not be disenrolled from MMC upon receipt of Medicare.

To facilitate the transition and not disadvantage the recipient, the Medicaid program is approving reimbursement of Part B premiums for enrollees in MMC." The procedure for getting the Part B premium paid is different for those whose Medicaid was administered by the NYS of Health Exchange (Marketplace), as opposed to their local social services district. The procedure is also different for those who obtain Medicare because they turn 65, as opposed to obtaining Medicare based on disability. Either way, Medicaid recipients who transition onto Medicare should be automatically evaluated for MSP eligibility at their next Medicaid recertification.

NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 Individuals can also affirmatively ask to be enrolled in MSP in between recertification periods. IF CLIENT HAD MEDICAID ON THE MARKETPLACE (NYS of Health Exchange) before obtaining Medicare. IF they obtain Medicare because they turn age 65, they will receive a letter from their local district asking them to "renew" Medicaid through their local district.

See 2014 LCM-02. Now, their Medicaid income limit will be lower than the MAGI limits ($842/ mo reduced from $1387/month) and they now will have an asset test. For this reason, some individuals may lose full Medicaid eligibility when they begin receiving Medicare.

People over age 65 who obtain Medicare do NOT keep "Marketplace Medicaid" for 12 months (continuous eligibility) See GIS 15 MA/022 - Continuous Coverage for MAGI Individuals. Since MSP has NO ASSET limit. Some individuals may be enrolled in the MSP even if they lose Medicaid, or if they now have a Medicaid spend-down.

If a Medicare/Medicaid recipient reports income that exceeds the Medicaid level, districts must evaluate the person’s eligibility for MSP. 08 OHIP/ADM-4 ​If you became eligible for Medicare based on disability and you are UNDER AGE 65, you are entitled to keep MAGI Medicaid for 12 months from the month it was last authorized, even if you now have income normally above the MAGI limit, and even though you now have Medicare. This is called Continuous Eligibility.

EXAMPLE. Sam, age 60, was last authorized for Medicaid on the Marketplace in June 2016. He became enrolled in Medicare based on disability in August 2016, and started receiving Social Security in the same month (he won a hearing approving Social Security disability benefits retroactively, after first being denied disability).

Even though his Social Security is too high, he can keep Medicaid for 12 months beginning June 2016. Sam has to pay for his Part B premium - it is deducted from his Social Security check. He may call the Marketplace and request a refund.

This will continue until the end of his 12 months of continues MAGI Medicaid eligibility. He will be reimbursed regardless of whether he is in a Medicaid managed care plan. See GIS 18 MA/001 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare (PDF) When that ends, he will renew Medicaid and apply for MSP with his local district.

Individuals who are eligible for Medicaid with a spenddown can opt whether or not to receive MSP. (Medicaid Reference Guide (MRG) p. 19).

Obtaining MSP may increase their spenddown. MIPPA - Outreach by Social Security Administration -- Under MIPPA, the SSA sends a form letter to people who may be eligible for a Medicare Savings Program or Extra Help (Low Income Subsidy - LIS) that they may apply. The letters are.

· Beneficiary has Extra Help (LIS), but not MSP · Beneficiary has no Extra Help (LIS) or MSP 6. Enrolling in MSP for People Age 65+ who do Not have Free Medicare Part A - the "Part A Buy-In Program" Seniors WITHOUT MEDICARE PART A or B -- They may be able to enroll in the Part A Buy-In program, in which people eligible for QMB who are age 65+ who do not otherwise have Medicare Part A may enroll in Part A, with Medicaid paying the Part A premium. See Step-by-Step Guide by the Medicare Rights Center).

This guide explains the various steps in "conditionally enrolling" in Part A at the SSA office, which must be done before applying for QMB at the Medicaid office, which will then pay the Part A premium. See also GIS 04 MA/013. In June, 2018, the SSA revised the POMS manual procedures for the Part A Buy-In to to address inconsistencies and confusion in SSA field offices and help smooth the path for QMB enrollment.

The procedures are in the POMS Section HI 00801.140 "Premium-Free Part A Enrollments for Qualified Medicare BenefiIaries." It includes important clarifications, such as. SSA Field Offices should explain the QMB program and conditional enrollment process if an individual lacks premium-free Part A and appears to meet QMB requirements. SSA field offices can add notes to the “Remarks” section of the application and provide a screen shot to the individual so the individual can provide proof of conditional Part A enrollment when applying for QMB through the state Medicaid program.

Beneficiaries are allowed to complete the conditional application even if they owe Medicare premiums. In Part A Buy-in states like NYS, SSA should process conditional applications on a rolling basis (without regard to enrollment periods), even if the application coincides with the General Enrollment Period. (The General Enrollment Period is from Jan 1 to March 31st every year, in which anyone eligible may enroll in Medicare Part A or Part B to be effective on July 1st).

7. What happens after the MSP approval - How is Part B premium paid For all three MSP programs, the Medicaid program is now responsible for paying the Part B premiums, even though the MSP enrollee is not necessarily a recipient of Medicaid. The local Medicaid office (DSS/HRA) transmits the MSP approval to the NYS Department of Health – that information gets shared w/ SSA and CMS SSA stops deducting the Part B premiums out of the beneficiary’s Social Security check.

SSA also refunds any amounts owed to the recipient. (Note. This process can take awhile!.

!. !. ) CMS “deems” the MSP recipient eligible for Part D Extra Help/ Low Income Subsidy (LIS).

​Can the MSP be retroactive like Medicaid, back to 3 months before the application?. ​The answer is different for the 3 MSP programs. QMB -No Retroactive Eligibility – Benefits begin the month after the month of the MSP application.

18 NYCRR § 360-7.8(b)(5) SLIMB - YES - Retroactive Eligibility up to 3 months before the application, if was eligible This means applicant may be reimbursed for the 3 months of Part B benefits prior to the month of application. QI-1 - YES up to 3 months but only in the same calendar year. No retroactive eligibility to the previous year.

7. QMBs -Special Rules on Cost-Sharing. QMB is the only MSP program which pays not only the Part B premium, but also the Medicare co-insurance.

However, there are limitations. First, co-insurance will only be paid if the provide accepts Medicaid. Not all Medicare provides accept Medicaid.

Second, under recent changes in New York law, Medicaid will not always pay the Medicare co-insurance, even to a Medicaid provider. But even if the provider does not accept Medicaid, or if Medicaid does not pay the full co-insurance, the provider is banned from "balance billing" the QMB beneficiary for the co-insurance. Click here for an article that explains all of these rules.

This article was authored by the Empire Justice Center.THE PROBLEM. Meet Joe, whose Doctor has Billed him for the Medicare Coinsurance Joe Client is disabled and has SSD, Medicaid and Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB). His health care is covered by Medicare, and Medicaid and the QMB program pick up his Medicare cost-sharing obligations.

Under Medicare Part B, his co-insurance is 20% of the Medicare-approved charge for most outpatient services. He went to the doctor recently and, as with any other Medicare beneficiary, the doctor handed him a bill for his co-pay. Now Joe has a bill that he can’t pay.

Read below to find out -- SHORT ANSWER. QMB or Medicaid will pay the Medicare coinsurance only in limited situations. First, the provider must be a Medicaid provider.

Second, even if the provider accepts Medicaid, under recent legislation in New York enacted in 2015 and 2016, QMB or Medicaid may pay only part of the coinsurance, or none at all. This depends in part on whether the beneficiary has Original Medicare or is in a Medicare Advantage plan, and in part on the type of service. However, the bottom line is that the provider is barred from "balance billing" a QMB beneficiary for the Medicare coinsurance.

Unfortunately, this creates tension between an individual and her doctors, pharmacies dispensing Part B medications, and other providers. Providers may not know they are not allowed to bill a QMB beneficiary for Medicare coinsurance, since they bill other Medicare beneficiaries. Even those who know may pressure their patients to pay, or simply decline to serve them.

These rights and the ramifications of these QMB rules are explained in this article. CMS is doing more education about QMB Rights. The Medicare Handbook, since 2017, gives information about QMB Protections.

Download the 2020 Medicare Handbook here. See pp. 53, 86.

1. To Which Providers will QMB or Medicaid Pay the Medicare Co-Insurance?. "Providers must enroll as Medicaid providers in order to bill Medicaid for the Medicare coinsurance." CMS Informational Bulletin issued January 6, 2012, titled "Billing for Services Provided to Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs).

The CMS bulletin states, "If the provider wants Medicaid to pay the coinsurance, then the provider must register as a Medicaid provider under the state rules." If the provider chooses not to enroll as a Medicaid provider, they still may not "balance bill" the QMB recipient for the coinsurance. 2. How Does a Provider that DOES accept Medicaid Bill for a QMB Beneficiary?.

If beneficiary has Original Medicare -- The provider bills Medicaid - even if the QMB Beneficiary does not also have Medicaid. Medicaid is required to pay the provider for all Medicare Part A and B cost-sharing charges, even if the service is normally not covered by Medicaid (ie, chiropractic, podiatry and clinical social work care). Whatever reimbursement Medicaid pays the provider constitutes by law payment in full, and the provider cannot bill the beneficiary for any difference remaining.

42 U.S.C. § 1396a(n)(3)(A), NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 If the QMB beneficiary is in a Medicare Advantage plan - The provider bills the Medicare Advantage plan, then bills Medicaid for the balance using a “16” code to get paid. The provider must include the amount it received from Medicare Advantage plan.

3. For a Provider who accepts Medicaid, How Much of the Medicare Coinsurance will be Paid for a QMB or Medicaid Beneficiary in NYS?. The answer to this question has changed by laws enacted in 2015 and 2016.

In the proposed 2019 State Budget, Gov. Cuomo has proposed to reduce how much Medicaid pays for the Medicare costs even further. The amount Medicaid pays is different depending on whether the individual has Original Medicare or is a Medicare Advantage plan, with better payment for those in Medicare Advantage plans.

The answer also differs based on the type of service. Part A Deductibles and Coinsurance - Medicaid pays the full Part A hospital deductible ($1,408 in 2020) and Skilled Nursing Facility coinsurance ($176/day) for days 20 - 100 of a rehab stay. Full payment is made for QMB beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients who have no spend-down.

Payments are reduced if the beneficiary has a Medicaid spend-down. For in-patient hospital deductible, Medicaid will pay only if six times the monthly spend-down has been met. For example, if Mary has a $200/month spend down which has not been met otherwise, Medicaid will pay only $164 of the hospital deductible (the amount exceeding 6 x $200).

See more on spend-down here. Medicare Part B - Deductible - Currently, Medicaid pays the full Medicare approved charges until the beneficiary has met the annual deductible, which is $198 in 2020. For example, Dr.

John charges $500 for a visit, for which the Medicare approved charge is $198. Medicaid pays the entire $198, meeting the deductible. If the beneficiary has a spend-down, then the Medicaid payment would be subject to the spend-down.

In the 2019 proposed state budget, Gov. Cuomo proposed to reduce the amount Medicaid pays toward the deductible to the same amount paid for coinsurance during the year, described below. This proposal was REJECTED by the state legislature.

Co-Insurance - The amount medicaid pays in NYS is different for Original Medicare and Medicare Advantage. If individual has Original Medicare, QMB/Medicaid will pay the 20% Part B coinsurance only to the extent the total combined payment the provider receives from Medicare and Medicaid is the lesser of the Medicaid or Medicare rate for the service. For example, if the Medicare rate for a service is $100, the coinsurance is $20.

If the Medicaid rate for the same service is only $80 or less, Medicaid would pay nothing, as it would consider the doctor fully paid = the provider has received the full Medicaid rate, which is lesser than the Medicare rate. Exceptions - Medicaid/QMB wil pay the full coinsurance for the following services, regardless of the Medicaid rate. ambulance and psychologists - The Gov's 2019 proposal to eliminate these exceptions was rejected.

hospital outpatient clinic, certain facilities operating under certificates issued under the Mental Hygiene Law for people with developmental disabilities, psychiatric disability, and chemical dependence (Mental Hygiene Law Articles 16, 31 or 32). SSL 367-a, subd. 1(d)(iii)-(v) , as amended 2015 If individual is in a Medicare Advantage plan, 85% of the copayment will be paid to the provider (must be a Medicaid provider), regardless of how low the Medicaid rate is.

This limit was enacted in the 2016 State Budget, and is better than what the Governor proposed - which was the same rule used in Original Medicare -- NONE of the copayment or coinsurance would be paid if the Medicaid rate was lower than the Medicare rate for the service, which is usually the case. This would have deterred doctors and other providers from being willing to treat them. SSL 367-a, subd.

1(d)(iv), added 2016. EXCEPTIONS. The Medicare Advantage plan must pay the full coinsurance for the following services, regardless of the Medicaid rate.

ambulance ) psychologist ) The Gov's proposal in the 2019 budget to eliminate these exceptions was rejected by the legislature Example to illustrate the current rules. The Medicare rate for Mary's specialist visit is $185. The Medicaid rate for the same service is $120.

Current rules (since 2016). Medicare Advantage -- Medicare Advantage plan pays $135 and Mary is charged a copayment of $50 (amount varies by plan). Medicaid pays the specialist 85% of the $50 copayment, which is $42.50.

The doctor is prohibited by federal law from "balance billing" QMB beneficiaries for the balance of that copayment. Since provider is getting $177.50 of the $185 approved rate, provider will hopefully not be deterred from serving Mary or other QMBs/Medicaid recipients. Original Medicare - The 20% coinsurance is $37.

Medicaid pays none of the coinsurance because the Medicaid rate ($120) is lower than the amount the provider already received from Medicare ($148). For both Medicare Advantage and Original Medicare, if the bill was for a ambulance or psychologist, Medicaid would pay the full 20% coinsurance regardless of the Medicaid rate. The proposal to eliminate this exception was rejected by the legislature in 2019 budget.

. 4. May the Provider 'Balance Bill" a QMB Benficiary for the Coinsurance if Provider Does Not Accept Medicaid, or if Neither the Patient or Medicaid/QMB pays any coinsurance?.

No. Balance billing is banned by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1396a(n)(3)(A). In an Informational Bulletin issued January 6, 2012, titled "Billing for Services Provided to Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs)," the federal Medicare agency - CMS - clarified that providers MAY NOT BILL QMB recipients for the Medicare coinsurance. This is true whether or not the provider is registered as a Medicaid provider.

If the provider wants Medicaid to pay the coinsurance, then the provider must register as a Medicaid provider under the state rules. This is a change in policy in implementing Section 1902(n)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as modified by section 4714 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which prohibits Medicare providers from balance-billing QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing. The CMS letter states, "All Medicare physicians, providers, and suppliers who offer services and supplies to QMBs are prohibited from billing QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing, including deductible, coinsurance, and copayments.

This section of the Act is available at. CMCS Informational Bulletin http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1902.htm. QMBs have no legal obligation to make further payment to a provider or Medicare managed care plan for Part A or Part B cost sharing.

Providers who inappropriately bill QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing are subject to sanctions. Please note that the statute referenced above supersedes CMS State Medicaid Manual, Chapter 3, Eligibility, 3490.14 (b), which is no longer in effect, but may be causing confusion about QMB billing." The same information was sent to providers in this Medicare Learning Network bulletin, last revised in June 26, 2018. CMS reminded Medicare Advantage plans of the rule against Balance Billing in the 2017 Call Letter for plan renewals.

See this excerpt of the 2017 call letter by Justice in Aging - Prohibition on Billing Medicare-Medicaid Enrollees for Medicare Cost Sharing 5. How do QMB Beneficiaries Show a Provider that they have QMB and cannot be Billed for the Coinsurance?. It can be difficult to show a provider that one is a QMB.

It is especially difficult for providers who are not Medicaid providers to identify QMB's, since they do not have access to online Medicaid eligibility systems Consumers can now call 1-800-MEDICARE to verify their QMB Status and report a billing issue. If a consumer reports a balance billng problem to this number, the Customer Service Rep can escalate the complaint to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), which will send a compliance letter to the provider with a copy to the consumer. See CMS Medicare Learning Network Bulletin effective Dec.

16, 2016. Medicare Summary Notices (MSNs) that Medicare beneficiaries receive every three months state that QMBs have no financial liability for co-insurance for each Medicare-covered service listed on the MSN. The Remittance Advice (RA) that Medicare sends to providers shows the same information.

By spelling out billing protections on a service-by-service basis, the MSNs provide clarity for both the QMB beneficiary and the provider. Justice in Aging has posted samples of what the new MSNs look like here. They have also updated Justice in Aging’s Improper Billing Toolkit to incorporate references to the MSNs in its model letters that you can use to advocate for clients who have been improperly billed for Medicare-covered services.

CMS is implementing systems changes that will notify providers when they process a Medicare claim that the patient is QMB and has no cost-sharing liability. The Medicare Summary Notice sent to the beneficiary will also state that the beneficiary has QMB and no liability. These changes were scheduled to go into effect in October 2017, but have been delayed.

Read more about them in this Justice in Aging Issue Brief on New Strategies in Fighting Improper Billing for QMBs (Feb. 2017). QMBs are issued a Medicaid benefit card (by mail), even if they do not also receive Medicaid.

The card is the mechanism for health care providers to bill the QMB program for the Medicare deductibles and co-pays. Unfortunately, the Medicaid card dos not indicate QMB eligibility. Not all people who have Medicaid also have QMB (they may have higher incomes and "spend down" to the Medicaid limits.

Advocates have asked for a special QMB card, or a notation on the Medicaid card to show that the individual has QMB. See this Report - a National Survey on QMB Identification Practices published by Justice in Aging, authored by Peter Travitsky, NYLAG EFLRP staff attorney. The Report, published in March 2017, documents how QMB beneficiaries could be better identified in order to ensure providers do not bill them improperly.

6. If you are Billed -​ Strategies Consumers can now call 1-800-MEDICARE to report a billing issue. If a consumer reports a balance billng problem to this number, the Customer Service Rep can escalate the complaint to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), which will send a compliance letter to the provider with a copy to the consumer.

See CMS Medicare Learning Network Bulletin effective Dec. 16, 2016. Send a letter to the provider, using the Justice In Aging Model model letters to providers to explain QMB rights.​​​ both for Original Medicare (Letters 1-2) and Medicare Advantage (Letters 3-5) - see Overview of model letters.

Include a link to the CMS Medicare Learning Network Notice. Prohibition on Balance Billing Dually Eligible Individuals Enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Program (revised June 26. 2018) In January 2017, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued this guide to QMB billing.

A consumer who has a problem with debt collection, may also submit a complaint online or call the CFPB at 1-855-411-2372. TTY/TDD users can call 1-855-729-2372. Medicare Advantage members should complain to their Medicare Advantage plan.

In its 2017 Call Letter, CMS stressed to Medicare Advantage contractors that federal regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 422.504 (g)(1)(iii), require that provider contracts must prohibit collection of deductibles and co-payments from dual eligibles and QMBs. Toolkit to Help Protect QMB Rights ​​In July 2015, CMS issued a report, "Access to Care Issues Among Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMB's)" documenting how pervasive illegal attempts to bill QMBs for the Medicare coinsurance, including those who are members of managed care plans.

Justice in Aging, a national advocacy organization, has a project to educate beneficiaries about balance billing and to advocate for stronger protections for QMBs. Links to their webinars and other resources is at this link. Their information includes.

September 4, 2009, updated 6/20/20 by Valerie Bogart, NYLAG Author.

Buy cheap lasix

The past week has seen an explosion of media commentary buy cheap lasix about whether children in the UK should go back to school can u buy lasix over the counter. Since ‘lockdown’ (23 March 2020) began schools have been open to vulnerable children and young people, and to the children of ‘key buy cheap lasix workers’. Right from the start there have been differing opinions about the necessity or wisdom of closing schools. Viner et al1 produced a rapid systematic review that concludes that school closures have less impact on rate and mortality than other social distancing measures buy cheap lasix.

Many countries have closed their schools for less time than the UK and have already started to reopen with several protective measures in place.2Concerns about the long-term economic, social and mental impact of lockdown led to the generation of plans to ‘get back to business’. This was buy cheap lasix conveyed to the population of the UK on 10 May by the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson. He announced a range of measures to gradually reduce the level of lockdown. This is in keeping with modelling undertaken by various groups, including a preprint (not peer-reviewed) modelling exercise by buy cheap lasix Zhang et al.3Mr Johnson announced that there would be a phased return (in England) of some children to school from 1 June.

There are no national guidelines as it is recognised that school have differences that require a flexible approach, but there are a broad set of principles relating to social distancing and hygiene.Government ministers and teachers’ unions have opposing views on the safety of reopening schools. In a joint statement nine unions representing teachers stated that buy cheap lasix they thought 1 June was too early to be safe.4 They recognise that the opening of schools is a vital part of restarting the UK economy, but they have concerns about the safety and welfare of children and others.Meanwhile, the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, spoke at a press conference on 16 May stating that scientific evidence backed their decision. Interestingly, much of his statement was not about the scientific evidence but setting out an emotive argument that school was essential for safe and happy children.There is a consequence to this, the longer that schools are closed the more that children miss out. Teachers know that there are children out there that have not spoken or buy cheap lasix played with another child their own age for the last two months.

They know there are children from difficult or very unhappy homes for whom school is the happiest moment in their week, and it’s also the safest place for them to be. The poorest buy cheap lasix children will be the ones who fall further behind if we keep school gates closed. This phased return is in line with what buy cheap lasix other European countries are doing.There ensued an at times ill-tempered debate and a flurry of tweets and news articles identifying problems in enacting the government plan and the illogical nature of Williamson’s statement. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a briefing note on children’s experiences of learning during lockdown.5 This is being widely cited as a rationale for reopening schools because children from vulnerable backgrounds are disproportionately affected by not being able to attend school.

This has caused concern about the attainment gap, buy cheap lasix but as Quinn6 points out fewer children from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to return to school than those from more affluent backgrounds.Government ministers and spokespeople reiterated that scientific evidence and observation of other European countries where schools had reopened demonstrated their decision was the correct one. However, there were no links provided to the scientific evidence and unions were quick to seize on this (eg, NASUWT7).The chief scientific advisor to the Department for Education, Osama Rahman, made a statement in a parliamentary science and technology committee meeting on 13 May that:There is a low degree of confidence in evidence that [children] might transmit it less.Carol Monaghan, the Scottish National Party education spokesperson, replied:We’re putting together hundreds of potential vectors that can then go on and transmit. Is that correct? buy cheap lasix. Osama Rahman responded:Possibly, depending on school sizes.His final statement contains layers of complexity but can be interpreted simply as ‘we don’t know’.

This provoked a buy cheap lasix great deal of disquiet. Rahman had already stated that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) was collecting and considering evidence that was new and emerging, and that confidence was low in the evidence relating to transmission because there was very little evidence.8 However, this normal scientific caution in the evidence base was not discussed, and therefore it was assumed that low or moderate confidence in the evidence means a high-risk strategy is being mooted.There appear to be two major concerns about lifting the lockdown for children. First is the risk to children of developing buy cheap lasix hypertension disease. The second is the risk to others of children transmitting hypertension disease, either while being symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Here are some of the available evidence.Morbidity buy cheap lasix and mortality in children from hypertension diseaseChildren appear to be less likely to acquire hypertension disease in various nations.9–11 Barton et al12 found that children account for 1.9% of confirmed cases (data collected from government websites and publications). Of these 8113 paediatric cases, 14% required hospital admission. The admission rate to critical care was 2.2% of confirmed cases (7.2% of admitted children) buy cheap lasix. Death was reported in 15 cases (0.18%) buy cheap lasix.

This adds to other evidence suggesting that children are at a relatively low risk from the lasix, with other estimates coming in at around 0.01%.13 14 This is likely to be because they appear to have a stronger immune response to the lasix.15There are concerns that children who have been infected with the lasix can develop a postviral inflammatory reaction (Kawasaki disease) and this can be severe,16 but the research evidence for this is not well developed yet.Transmission by childrenChildren can be asymptomatic and test positive for hypertension medications, and in the absence of effective community testing it will be impossible to know if they are carrying the lasix. Children also can have normal or abnormal signs (eg, chest imaging) when they have tested positive.17 In short, it is difficult to determine without much more extensive testing if a child can transmit the .Arav et al18 found that the contact buy cheap lasix route was much more important than the airborne route, which they concluded had a negligible contribution. They suggest protective measures would therefore be good hand hygiene, careful cleaning and avoiding physical contact.Given that there are quite low numbers of symptomatic cases and an unknown quantity of asymptomatic cases, it is very difficult to determine whether children are a significant vector for the disease. Studies cited by the buy cheap lasix Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that explored family clusters of suggest that the child was unlikely to be the index case.The riskThis evidence suggests that there is a case for reopening schools to limited numbers of pupils—the risk to pupils and the adults they come into contact with seems to be small, and the potential gains for children may outweigh them.

There is a big proviso with this however, and that is that the overall incidence of hypertension medications has fallen below specified threshold. This is quite a contentious issue and depends on us meeting the five key tests for easing lockdown.Making sure the National Health Service can cope.A sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate.Rate of decreasing to manageable levels.Ensuring that personal protective equipment supply can meet demand.Being confident that any adjustments would not risk a second peak.These conditions are open to interpretation, and there appears to be a lack of trust by the public and by professionals from education and health in the information that the government and their scientific advisors are buy cheap lasix sharing. An example of this is a group of scientists who have come together to challenge the government about their decision-making.19 The concern about whether the evidence and advice that we are given are biased in any way has also been increased by concerns that a government advisor (Dominic Cummings) has attended what were supposed to be politically independent meetings of the SAGE.Scientific evidence continues to emerge, but weighing up the risks and benefits is not easy. Decisions about whether to reopen schools are buy cheap lasix taken on a national level with a distance from personal concerns and fears.

Individuals who are making decisions often rely on media translations of the evidence, and there is a level of mistrust in politicians and the media.20 Individuals are often irrational in their risk perception and management (eg, continuing to smoke or drink alcohol despite strong scientific evidence about the risk).21 22Overall, we are information-poor and opinion-rich. It is buy cheap lasix a difficult path to navigate. The debate about whether the benefits outweigh the risks of returning to school reminds me of the post-Wakefield Measles Mumps and Rubella vaccination situation. Parents were being asked to believe that MMR was a safe treatment in the buy cheap lasix face of a massive and emotive campaign that promoted the ‘risk’ of having the treatment above all else.

This situation is even more complex than buy cheap lasix that as we have increased http://kwcea.net/?page_id=29 access to opinion and difficulty in understanding if or how much that information is biased. It is no wonder that decision-making is difficult. It is likely that evidence will continue to emerge and gradually buy cheap lasix the choice will become easier to make. For now, however, we can understand the difficulties that parents, teachers and councils face.IntroductionWhenever developing training competencies, tools to support clinical practice or a response to a professional issue, seeking the opinion of experts is a common approach.

By working to identify a consensus position, researchers can report findings on a specific question (or set of questions) that are buy cheap lasix based on the knowledge and experience of experts in their field.However, there are challenges to this approach. For example, what should be done when consensus cannot be reached?. How can experts be engaged in a way that allows them to consider objectively the views of others and—where appropriate—change their own opinions in response? buy cheap lasix. One approach that attempts to provide a clear method for gathering expert opinion is the Delphi technique.The Delphi technique was first developed in the 1950s by Norman Dalkey and Olaf Helmer in an attempt to gain reliable expert consensus.

Specifically, they developed an approach—named after the Ancient Greek Oracle buy cheap lasix of Delphi, who could predict the future—which promoted anonymity and avoided direct confrontation between experts, so that the methods employed “…appear to be more conducive to independent thought on the part of the experts and to aid them in the gradual formation of a considered opinion”.1 Though the original Delphi study was linked to the defence industry, the technique has spread to other research areas, including nursing.2Characteristics of Delphi studiesAs with all research methods, the Delphi technique has evolved since it was first reported on in the 1960s. However, many of the fundamental characteristics of the approach still remain from Dalkey and Helmer’s original outline. First, the buy cheap lasix overarching approach is based on a series of ‘rounds’, where a set of experts are asked their opinions on a particular issue. The questions for each round are based in part of the findings of the previous one, allowing the study to evolve over time in response to earlier findings.Second, participants are able to see the results of previous rounds—including their own responses—allowing them to reflect on the views of others and reposition their own opinions accordingly.2 This also gives them the opportunity to consider and feedback on what they perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of other’s responses.

Finally, the findings of each round buy cheap lasix are always shared with the broader group anonymously. This avoids any bias buy cheap lasix that might result from participants being concerned about their own views being viewed negatively or from their own opinions being biased by personal factors. This framework of expert opinion rounds, with each round built on previous findings and each allowing for responses to be reconsidered by participants, is designed to allow the development of a consensus view that answers the research question.Within this broad approach, there can be variation in areas such as how many rounds there are, how the questions are delivered and responses collected, and how ‘consensus’ is judged. For example, buy cheap lasix a study of human factors that contributed to nursing errors used only two rounds.

The first took the form of an online survey asking 25 experts to list all the ‘human’ causes of nursing errors that they could. Analysis of responses resulted in a list of 28 potential reasons—this list was sent back to the same group buy cheap lasix of experts for the second round, asking them to score each one for importance. Analysis of this scoring then allowed for consensus conclusions on the top 10 human factors that contributed to nursing errors (with fatigue, heavy workload and communication problems the top three).3In another example, nurse practitioners (NPs) were recruited to participate in a Delphi study to achieve consensus related to NP advance care planning competencies. In round 1, draft competencies were developed from the findings of a survey of NP beliefs, buy cheap lasix knowledge and level of implementation of advance care planning.

Round 2 included engagement with 29 NPs who evaluated the draft competencies and their components. Revisions were made based on the original feedback, and a third round was conducted where 15 of the original NP participants buy cheap lasix confirmed their consensus with the final document. The final document includes four competencies, each with several elements. Clinical Practice, Consultation and Communication, Advocacy and Therapeutic Management.4Strengths and weaknesses of Delphi studiesThe Delphi technique offers a flexible approach to gathering buy cheap lasix the views of experts on an area of interest.

The ability for participants to reconsider their views in light of the contribution of others allows for an element of reflection that is missing from studies based on single interviews or focus groups. The anonymity among the expert groups that underpins Delphi studies promotes honesty among participants and reduces the risk of the ‘halo effect’ where buy cheap lasix views from dominant or high-profile members of the group are given extra credence.5However, Delphi studies can—by their very nature—be complex and time consuming. The need for participants to buy cheap lasix complete multiple rounds can lead to high drop-out rates which impacts on validity of the study. The ability of participants to amend or alter their views at each round is also something of a double-edged sword.

It provides those taking part with the opportunity to reflect and reconsider their buy cheap lasix position in response to additional information, which is an important part of nursing practice. Conversely though, there is a danger that this flexibility introduces bias, with participants altering their response to comply with what they view to be the majority view (sometime called the ‘bandwagon effect’).5Delphi studies can be criticised due to a lack of clarity on what is meant by ‘consensus’. Even with the level of flexibility and reflexivity present in Delphi studies, it is still unlikely that a group of experts will buy cheap lasix demonstrate 100% agreement on issues. However, because consensus is a requirement of a Delphi study, there does need to be a judgement on when this point is reached.

This is where there is inconsistency across studies and authors, with the suggested level of consensus ranging from 51% to 100%.2 In addition, it has been identified that in some areas, consensus is not predefined as part of buy cheap lasix the study method. For example, a review of Delphi studies in nurse education found that fewer than half of the papers appraised included a predefined level at which consensus was judged to have been achieved.6 In addition, the identification of an objective level consensus is only possible when gathering quantifiable data—the judgement on consensus being reached in some qualitative Delphi studies will always be rather more subjective on the part of the researcher, and therefore potentially open to bias.By their nature, Delphi studies often rely purely on expert opinion to generate findings. A further limitation is therefore related to the quality of evidence, with expert opinion viewed as providing a poor basis for making judgements on healthcare interventions.7 This does not mean that the findings buy cheap lasix of Delphi studies are intrinsically unreliable or invalid. It does mean that researchers should consider whether their research question is one that can be answered through expert consensus or whether other approaches (such as a systematic review of research evidence) are more appropriate.ConclusionThe Delphi technique is a well-established approach to answering a research question through the identification of a consensus view across subject experts.

It allows for buy cheap lasix reflection among participants, who are able to nuance and reconsider their opinion based on the anonymised opinions of others. However, researchers must take steps to enhance robustness of the studies. It is buy cheap lasix important to try and prevent participants from simply resorting to agreeing with the majority view. Studies must also predefine what is meant by ‘consensus’ and how it will be established.With careful and clear design though, Delphi studies can make a valuable contribution to the nursing evidence base by tapping into the profession’s most precious resource—the knowledge and expertise of its practitioners..

The past week has buy real lasix online seen an explosion of media commentary about whether children in the UK should go back to click to read more school. Since ‘lockdown’ (23 March 2020) began schools have been buy real lasix online open to vulnerable children and young people, and to the children of ‘key workers’. Right from the start there have been differing opinions about the necessity or wisdom of closing schools. Viner et al1 produced a rapid systematic review that concludes that school closures have less impact on rate and mortality than other social distancing measures buy real lasix online.

Many countries have closed their schools for less time than the UK and have already started to reopen with several protective measures in place.2Concerns about the long-term economic, social and mental impact of lockdown led to the generation of plans to ‘get back to business’. This was conveyed to the population of the UK on 10 May by the buy real lasix online UK prime minister, Boris Johnson. He announced a range of measures to gradually reduce the level of lockdown. This is in keeping with modelling undertaken by various groups, including a preprint (not peer-reviewed) modelling exercise by Zhang et al.3Mr Johnson announced that there would be a phased return (in England) of buy real lasix online some children to school from 1 June.

There are no national guidelines as it is recognised that school have differences that require a flexible approach, but there are a broad set of principles relating to social distancing and hygiene.Government ministers and teachers’ unions have opposing views on the safety of reopening schools. In a joint statement nine unions representing teachers stated that they thought 1 June was too early to be safe.4 They recognise that the opening of schools is a vital part of restarting the UK economy, but they have concerns about the safety and welfare of children and others.Meanwhile, the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, spoke at a press conference on 16 May stating that scientific evidence backed their decision buy real lasix online. Interestingly, much of his statement was not about the scientific evidence but setting out an emotive argument that school was essential for safe and happy children.There is a consequence to this, the longer that schools are closed the more that children miss out. Teachers know buy real lasix online that there are children out there that have not spoken or played with another child their own age for the last two months.

They know there are children from difficult or very unhappy homes for whom school is the happiest moment in their week, and it’s also the safest place for them to be. The poorest children will be the ones who fall further behind if we keep school buy real lasix online gates closed. This phased return is in line with what other European countries are buy real lasix online doing.There ensued an at times ill-tempered debate and a flurry of tweets and news articles identifying problems in enacting the government plan and the illogical nature of Williamson’s statement. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a briefing note on children’s experiences of learning during lockdown.5 This is being widely cited as a rationale for reopening schools because children from vulnerable backgrounds are disproportionately affected by not being able to attend school.

This has caused concern about the attainment buy real lasix online gap, but as Quinn6 points out fewer children from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to return to school than those from more affluent backgrounds.Government ministers and spokespeople reiterated that scientific evidence and observation of other European countries where schools had reopened demonstrated their decision was the correct one. However, there were no links provided to the scientific evidence and unions were quick to seize on this (eg, NASUWT7).The chief scientific advisor to the Department for Education, Osama Rahman, made a statement in a parliamentary science and technology committee meeting on 13 May that:There is a low degree of confidence in evidence that [children] might transmit it less.Carol Monaghan, the Scottish National Party education spokesperson, replied:We’re putting together hundreds of potential vectors that can then go on and transmit. Is that buy real lasix online correct?. Osama Rahman responded:Possibly, depending on school sizes.His final statement contains layers of complexity but can be interpreted simply as ‘we don’t know’.

This provoked a great deal buy real lasix online of disquiet. Rahman had already stated that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) was collecting and considering evidence that was new and emerging, and that confidence was low in the evidence relating to transmission because there was very little evidence.8 However, this normal scientific caution in the evidence base was not discussed, and therefore it was assumed that low or moderate confidence in the evidence means a high-risk strategy is being mooted.There appear to be two major concerns about lifting the lockdown for children. First is buy real lasix online the risk to children of developing hypertension disease. The second is the risk to others of children transmitting hypertension disease, either while being symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Here are some of the available evidence.Morbidity and mortality in children from hypertension diseaseChildren buy real lasix online appear to be less likely to acquire hypertension disease in various nations.9–11 Barton et al12 found that children account for 1.9% of confirmed cases (data collected from government websites and publications). Of these 8113 paediatric cases, 14% required hospital admission. The admission rate to critical care was 2.2% of confirmed cases buy real lasix online (7.2% of admitted children). Death was reported in buy real lasix online 15 cases (0.18%).

This adds to other evidence suggesting that children are at a relatively low risk from the lasix, with other estimates coming in at around 0.01%.13 14 This is likely to be because they appear to have a stronger immune response to the lasix.15There are concerns that children who have been infected with the lasix can develop a postviral inflammatory reaction (Kawasaki disease) and this can be severe,16 but the research evidence for this is not well developed yet.Transmission by childrenChildren can be asymptomatic and test positive for hypertension medications, and in the absence of effective community testing it will be impossible to know if they are carrying the lasix. Children also can have normal or abnormal signs (eg, chest imaging) when they have tested positive.17 In short, it is difficult to determine without much more extensive testing if a child can transmit the .Arav et al18 found that buy real lasix online the contact route was much more important than the airborne route, which they concluded had a negligible contribution. They suggest protective measures would therefore be good hand hygiene, careful cleaning and avoiding physical contact.Given that there are quite low numbers of symptomatic cases and an unknown quantity of asymptomatic cases, it is very difficult to determine whether children are a significant vector for the disease. Studies cited by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that explored family clusters of suggest that the child was unlikely to be the index case.The riskThis evidence suggests that there is a case for reopening schools to limited numbers of pupils—the risk to pupils and the adults they come into contact with seems to be small, and buy real lasix online the potential gains for children may outweigh them.

There is a big proviso with this however, and that is that the overall incidence of hypertension medications has fallen below specified threshold. This is quite a contentious issue and depends on us meeting the five key tests for easing lockdown.Making sure the National Health Service can cope.A sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate.Rate of decreasing to manageable levels.Ensuring that personal protective equipment supply can meet demand.Being confident that any adjustments would not risk a second peak.These conditions are open to interpretation, and there appears to be a lack of trust by the public and by professionals from education and health in the information that buy real lasix online the government and their scientific advisors are sharing. An example of this is a group of scientists who have come together to challenge the government about their decision-making.19 The concern about whether the evidence and advice that we are given are biased in any way has also been increased by concerns that a government advisor (Dominic Cummings) has attended what were supposed to be politically independent meetings of the SAGE.Scientific evidence continues to emerge, but weighing up the risks and benefits is not easy. Decisions about whether to reopen schools are taken on buy real lasix online a national level with a distance from personal concerns and fears.

Individuals who are making decisions often rely on media translations of the evidence, and there is a level of mistrust in politicians and the media.20 Individuals are often irrational in their risk perception and management (eg, continuing to smoke or drink alcohol despite strong scientific evidence about the risk).21 22Overall, we are information-poor and opinion-rich. It is a difficult path buy real lasix online to navigate. The debate about whether the benefits outweigh the risks of returning to school reminds me of the post-Wakefield Measles Mumps and Rubella vaccination situation. Parents were being asked to believe that MMR was a safe treatment in the face of a massive and emotive campaign that promoted the ‘risk’ of having the treatment buy real lasix online above all else.

This situation is even more complex than that as we have increased access to opinion and difficulty in understanding if or how much that buy real lasix online information is biased. It is no wonder that decision-making is difficult. It is likely buy real lasix online that evidence will continue to emerge and gradually the choice will become easier to make. For now, however, we can understand the difficulties that parents, teachers and councils face.IntroductionWhenever developing training competencies, tools to support clinical practice or a response to a professional issue, seeking the opinion of experts is a common approach.

By working to identify a consensus position, researchers can report findings on a specific question (or set of questions) that are based on buy real lasix online the knowledge and experience of experts in their field.However, there are challenges to this approach. For example, what should be done when consensus cannot be reached?. How can experts be engaged in a way that allows them to consider objectively the views of buy real lasix online others and—where appropriate—change their own opinions in response?. One approach that attempts to provide a clear method for gathering expert opinion is the Delphi technique.The Delphi technique was first developed in the 1950s by Norman Dalkey and Olaf Helmer in an attempt to gain reliable expert consensus.

Specifically, they developed an approach—named buy real lasix online after the Ancient Greek Oracle of Delphi, who could predict the future—which promoted anonymity and avoided direct confrontation between experts, so that the methods employed “…appear to be more conducive to independent thought on the part of the experts and to aid them in the gradual formation of a considered opinion”.1 Though the original Delphi study was linked to the defence industry, the technique has spread to other research areas, including nursing.2Characteristics of Delphi studiesAs with all research methods, the Delphi technique has evolved since it was first reported on in the 1960s. However, many of the fundamental characteristics of the approach still remain from Dalkey and Helmer’s original outline. First, the overarching buy real lasix online approach is based on a series of ‘rounds’, where a set of experts are asked their opinions on a particular issue. The questions for each round are based in part of the findings of the previous one, allowing the study to evolve over time in response to earlier findings.Second, participants are able to see the results of previous rounds—including their own responses—allowing them to reflect on the views of others and reposition their own opinions accordingly.2 This also gives them the opportunity to consider and feedback on what they perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of other’s responses.

Finally, the findings of each round are always shared with buy real lasix online the broader group anonymously. This avoids any buy real lasix online bias that might result from participants being concerned about their own views being viewed negatively or from their own opinions being biased by personal factors. This framework of expert opinion rounds, with each round built on previous findings and each allowing for responses to be reconsidered by participants, is designed to allow the development of a consensus view that answers the research question.Within this broad approach, there can be variation in areas such as how many rounds there are, how the questions are delivered and responses collected, and how ‘consensus’ is judged. For example, a study of human buy real lasix online factors that contributed to nursing errors used only two rounds.

The first took the form of an online survey asking 25 experts to list all the ‘human’ causes of nursing errors that they could. Analysis of responses resulted in a list of 28 potential reasons—this list was sent back to the same group of experts for the second buy real lasix online round, asking them to score each one for importance. Analysis of this scoring then allowed for consensus conclusions on the top 10 human factors that contributed to nursing errors (with fatigue, heavy workload and communication problems the top three).3In another example, nurse practitioners (NPs) were recruited to participate in a Delphi study to achieve consensus related to NP advance care planning competencies. In round 1, draft competencies were developed from the findings of a survey of NP beliefs, knowledge and level of implementation of advance buy real lasix online care planning.

Round 2 included engagement with 29 NPs who evaluated the draft competencies and their components. Revisions were made based on the original feedback, and a third round was conducted where 15 of the original NP participants confirmed buy real lasix online their consensus with the final document. The final document includes four competencies, each with several elements. Clinical Practice, Consultation and Communication, Advocacy and Therapeutic Management.4Strengths and weaknesses of Delphi studiesThe Delphi technique offers a flexible approach to gathering the views of experts on an buy real lasix online area of interest.

The ability for participants to reconsider their views in light of the contribution of others allows for an element of reflection that is missing from studies based on single interviews or focus groups. The anonymity among the expert groups that underpins Delphi studies buy real lasix online promotes honesty among participants and reduces the risk of the ‘halo effect’ where views from dominant or high-profile members of the group are given extra credence.5However, Delphi studies can—by their very nature—be complex and time consuming. The need for participants to complete multiple rounds can lead to high drop-out rates which impacts on validity of the buy real lasix online study. The ability of participants to amend or alter their views at each round is also something of a double-edged sword.

It provides those taking part with the opportunity buy real lasix online to reflect and reconsider their position in response to additional information, which is an important part of nursing practice. Conversely though, there is a danger that this flexibility introduces bias, with participants altering their response to comply with what they view to be the majority view (sometime called the ‘bandwagon effect’).5Delphi studies can be criticised due to a lack of clarity on what is meant by ‘consensus’. Even with the level of flexibility and reflexivity present in Delphi studies, it buy real lasix online is still unlikely that a group of experts will demonstrate 100% agreement on issues. However, because consensus is a requirement of a Delphi study, there does need to be a judgement on when this point is reached.

This is where there is inconsistency across studies and authors, with the suggested level of consensus ranging from 51% to 100%.2 In addition, it has been identified that in some areas, consensus is not predefined as part of the study buy real lasix online method. For example, a review of Delphi studies in nurse education found that fewer than half of the papers appraised included a predefined level at which consensus was judged to have been achieved.6 In addition, the identification of an objective level consensus is only possible when gathering quantifiable data—the judgement on consensus being reached in some qualitative Delphi studies will always be rather more subjective on the part of the researcher, and therefore potentially open to bias.By their nature, Delphi studies often rely purely on expert opinion to generate findings. A further limitation is therefore related to the quality of evidence, with expert opinion viewed as providing a poor basis for making judgements on healthcare interventions.7 This does not mean that the findings of Delphi studies are intrinsically unreliable or invalid buy real lasix online. It does mean that researchers should consider whether their research question is one that can be answered through expert consensus or whether other approaches (such as a systematic review of research evidence) are more appropriate.ConclusionThe Delphi technique is a well-established approach to answering a research question through the identification of a consensus view across subject experts.

It allows for reflection buy real lasix online among participants, who are able to nuance and reconsider their opinion based on the anonymised opinions of others. However, researchers must take steps to enhance robustness of the studies. It is important to try and prevent participants from simply resorting to agreeing buy real lasix online with the majority view. Studies must also predefine what is meant by ‘consensus’ and how it will be established.With careful and clear design though, Delphi studies can make a valuable contribution to the nursing evidence base by tapping into the profession’s most precious resource—the knowledge and expertise of its practitioners..

What if I miss a dose?

If you miss a dose, take it as soon as you can. If it is almost time for your next dose, take only that dose. Do not take double or extra doses.

Aldactone and lasix

Protecting the safety and health of essential workers who support America’s food security—including the meat, aldactone and lasix poultry, and pork processing industries—is a top priority for the you can check here Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued additional guidance to reduce the risk of exposure to the hypertension and keep workers safe and healthy in the meatpacking and meat processing industries —including those involved in beef, pork, and poultry operations. This new guidance provides specific recommendations for employers to meet their obligations to protect workers in these facilities, where people normally work closely together and share workspaces and equipment. Here are eight ways to help minimize meat processing aldactone and lasix workers’ exposure to the hypertension.

Screen workers before they enter the workplace. If a worker becomes sick, send them home and disinfect their workstation and any tools they used. Move workstations farther apart aldactone and lasix. Install partitions between workstations using strip curtains, plexiglass, or similar materials.

To limit spread between groups, assign the same workers to the same shifts with the same coworkers. Prevent workers from using how to buy lasix online other workers’ aldactone and lasix equipment. Allow workers to wear face coverings when entering, inside, and exiting the facility. Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns to their supervisors.

OSHA is committed to ensuring that workers and employers in essential industries have clear guidance to keep workers safe and healthy from the hypertension—including guidance for essential workers in construction, manufacturing, aldactone and lasix package delivery, and retail. Workers and employers who have questions or concerns about workplace safety can contact OSHA online or by phone at 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA). You can find additional resources and learn more about OSHA’s response to the hypertension at www.osha.gov/hypertension. Loren Sweatt is the Principal Deputy aldactone and lasix Assistant Secretary for the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration Editor’s Note. It is important to note that information and guidance about hypertension medications continually evolve as conditions change. Workers and employers are encouraged to regularly refer to the resources below for updates:.

Protecting the safety and health of essential workers who support America’s buy lasix online no prescription food security—including the meat, buy real lasix online poultry, and pork processing industries—is a top priority for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued additional guidance to reduce the risk of exposure to the hypertension and keep workers safe and healthy in the meatpacking and meat processing industries —including those involved in beef, pork, and poultry operations. This new guidance provides specific recommendations for employers to meet their obligations to protect workers in these facilities, where people normally work closely together and share workspaces and equipment. Here are eight ways to help minimize meat processing workers’ exposure to buy real lasix online the hypertension. Screen workers before they enter the workplace.

If a worker becomes sick, send them home and disinfect their workstation and any tools they used. Move workstations farther buy real lasix online apart. Install partitions between workstations using strip curtains, plexiglass, or similar materials. To limit spread between groups, assign the same workers to the same shifts with the same coworkers. Prevent workers buy real lasix online http://bioladen-taucha.de/2020/05/21/hallo-welt/ from using other workers’ equipment.

Allow workers to wear face coverings when entering, inside, and exiting the facility. Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns to their supervisors. OSHA is committed to ensuring that workers and buy real lasix online employers in essential industries have clear guidance to keep workers safe and healthy from the hypertension—including guidance for essential workers in construction, manufacturing, package delivery, and retail. Workers and employers who have questions or concerns about workplace safety can contact OSHA online or by phone at 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA). You can find additional resources and learn more about OSHA’s response to the hypertension at www.osha.gov/hypertension.

Loren Sweatt is the buy real lasix online Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration Editor’s Note. It is important to note that information and guidance about hypertension medications continually evolve as conditions change. Workers and employers are encouraged to regularly refer to the resources below for updates:.

Does lasix cause sweating

On 22nd September 2020 the UK Government Online viagra prescription announced new lockdown restrictions to supress the hypertension medications lasix, does lasix cause sweating with some areas of England having more restrictive lockdown guidance. Students in a number of cities have been confined to their halls of residences after outbreaks of hypertension medications and in Manchester security guards were preventing students leaving the buildings. The scientific community are, unsurprisingly, divided over the question of how far lockdowns should extend.1 Monday 21st September 2020 saw the publication of two open does lasix cause sweating letter to the UK government and Chief Medical Officers.

One group, Sunetra Gupta et al,2 argued for a selective lockdown targeting the most vulnerable. The other, headed by Trisha Greenhalgh, arguing that attempts to suppress the lasix should operate across does lasix cause sweating the whole community.3 As we enter what appears to be a second wave of hypertension medications s and accompanying lockdown measures, ethical debates over the appropriateness and extent of such measures are critical.Julian Savulescu and James Cameron4 in their article on lockdown of the elderly and why this is not ageist, put forward the case that, ‘an appropriate approach may be to lift the general lockdown but implement selective isolation of the elderly.’ Their central claim is that selective isolation of the elderly is to be preferred to imposing lockdown on all members of society. The aim of lockdown, restricting movement and key activities, is designed to reduce the number of deaths from hypertension medications and also to prevent the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed.

As the elderly are at significantly more risk of having severe cases of hypertension medications and therefore more likely to place demands on healthcare services, they are clearly prime candidates for lockdown measures, measures that will not only does lasix cause sweating benefit them but the whole of society. This is not ageist as they point out that differential treatment is not always discrimination if there is a morally relevant reason for the differential treatment. The morally relevant reason in this case is that the elderly, and other groups who may be vulnerable to hypertension medications, are at greater risk of adverse does lasix cause sweating effects from hypertension medications and consequently more likely to burden the heath service if they get hypertension medications.

Even if this is discrimination they claim that it would be proportionate, as it benefits both the elderly and the wider population. Savulescu and Cameron argue that to does lasix cause sweating require everyone to be lockdown is the levelling down of equality – that is. €˜In order for there to be equality, people who could be better off are made worse off in order to achieve equality.’ And in their view such levelling down is ‘morally repugnant’ and unethical.In his response to Savulescu and Cameron, Jonathan Hughes5 takes issue with their claim that general lockdown measures that affect all members of society equally are a form of levelling down of equality.

Hughes argues that the claim that the levelling down of equality is always unethical can be challenged, but his main argument is that ‘the choice to maintain a general lockdown, rather than easing it for the young while maintaining it for the elderly, is not an instance of levelling down.’ For selective lockdown of the elderly to be an instance of levelling down of equality, it would have to make everyone else worse off with no additional benefit to the elderly. However, Hughes argues that a general lockdown does produce benefits or reduce burdens for the elderly and hence is not the levelling down of does lasix cause sweating equality. General lockdown will result in lower levels in the wider population and thus the elderly are less likely to contract hypertension medications.

Even during lockdown many elderly people have carers or service providers visiting them to perform caring responsibilities and with does lasix cause sweating lower general rates these visits are less likely to result in the spread of . Hence, the elderly are less likely to become a burden on the health service and lower levels of will mean an easing of lockdown for everyone sooner. €˜These considerations demonstrate that maintaining a general lockdown does lasix cause sweating in preference to selective lockdown of the elderly and vulnerable need not only equalise the burdens by making the young and healthy worse off, but can benefit the elderly in absolute as well as relative terms.’5As both Savulescu and Cameron, and Hughes note there is an issue of proportionality that needs to be considered.

Savulescu and Cameron give three reasons why the selective lockdown of the elderly, the restriction of their liberty, is proportionate. The benefits to others does lasix cause sweating are significant. The restriction will produce benefit for the elderly.

And finally, this is the option that results in the least amount does lasix cause sweating of liberty restriction. Hughes also points out, as do Savulescu and Cameron, that the harms to the elderly due to lockdown might be greater than for other groups, and therefore a general lockdown could be justified on the grounds of Parfit’s Priority View, that benefiting the worse off is more important.This raises the problem of how we determine who is worse off in this scenario, as both sets of authors point out that the elderly may have fewer social networks and hence be more socially isolated and find lockdown particularly hard. Further, if they only have a limited time to live, lockdown may present a relatively greater loss.

However, the young, who are facing huge disruption to their social development, their education and a curbing of their freedoms and life choices at critical junctures (ie, going to University and being away from home does lasix cause sweating for the first time), may want to argue that they are much more greatly harmed than the elderly. These potential inter-generational trade-offs need to be debated, and Stephen John argues we need to think about lockdown in terms of intergenerational justice. He argues age is a relevant categorization for discussing lockdown policies in relation to hypertension medications, as it is generally ‘an epistemically robust category, which can be operationalized.’3 and has particular significance for the aetiology of does lasix cause sweating hypertension medications.

As John observes, ‘However we approach the ethics of lockdown, we need to do ethical work in deciding how to describe the effects of lockdown in the first place. In turn, I want to suggest that this process is an important, although easily overlooked site of ethical and political contestation.’6 The effects of the hypertension medications response on those who are likely to suffer less from the disease, the younger generation, and on those whose non-hypertension medications healthcare has been suspended, according to some, are likely does lasix cause sweating to outweigh the harms caused by hypertension medications itself.7 Hence, describing the effects of hypertension medications and lockdown policies is no simple task.Elsewhere in this issue the Editor’s Choice article, Protecting health privacy even when privacy8 is lost by T.J. Kasperbauer considers the ethical and regulatory issues raised by the flow and sharing of data in modern healthcare.

He points out that the predominant model of safeguarding the privacy of healthcare data is one of information control, that does lasix cause sweating is an attempt to limit access to personal health data. However, limiting access has important implications for developments in healthcare such as leaning health systems and precision medicine, initiatives that require a large amount of health data. Limiting access could make many does lasix cause sweating data-linkage schemes unfeasible in practice.

Such uses of data have the potential to make significant contributions to improving healthcare, both in terms of developing new treatments and at an organisational level, re-designing patient pathways and utilising healthcare resources more effectively.9 As an alternative to a control view of privacy, he suggests three measures that could be instituted to enable greater sharing of data, ‘such that pervasive data sharing would not automatically entail a loss of privacy.’ These are. Data obfuscation, this is making the data obscure so it is not possible to make inferences about individuals. Penalisation of does lasix cause sweating data misuse.

And transparency, making any access to our data transparent so that it discourages inappropriate data use and we can see who has accessed our data. There are trade-offs and difficulties with all these suggestions as Kasperbauer notes and although changing laws around privacy is possibly the most important and most effective of these measures it is also the most difficult.The value of big data sets rests on their size and comprehensiveness, my desire to keep my health data does lasix cause sweating private and opt out of big data initiatives can comprise their success. Therefore, we need to explore ways of balancing individual concerns over privacy, with using data for the greater good, and how to address possible tensions between the two.10 How policy makers and healthcare systems will manage information privacy will be a growing issue and is another example, along with the hypertension medications lasix,11 of how we are increasingly thinking about ethical issues at a community, rather than an individual, level and in wider global contexts.

In a more connected bioethics, concepts such as justice and more community-based values such as stewardship, solidarity and reciprocity are likely to does lasix cause sweating become key tools to frame these debates.12hypertension medications continues to dominate 2020 and is likely to be a feature of our lives for some time to come. Given this, how should health systems respond ethically to the persistent challenges of responding to the ongoing impact of the lasix?. Relatedly, what ethical values should underpin the resetting of health does lasix cause sweating services after the initial wave, knowing that local spikes and further waves now seem inevitable?.

In this editorial, we outline some of the ethical challenges confronting those running health services as they try to resume non-hypertension medications-related services, and the downstream ethical implications these have for healthcare professionals’ day-to-day decision making. This is a phase of recovery, does lasix cause sweating resumption and renewal. A form of reset for health services.1 This reset phase will define the ‘new normal' for healthcare delivery, and it offers an opportunity to reimagine and change services for the better.

There are difficulties, however, healthcare systems are already weakened by austerity and the first wave of hypertension medications and remain under stress as the lasix continues. The reset period is does lasix cause sweating operating alongside, rather than at the end, of the lasix and this creates difficult ethical choices.Ethical challenges of resetBalancing the greater good with individual carelasixs—and public health emergencies more generally—reinforce approaches to ethics that emphasise or derive from the interests of communities, rather than those grounded in the claims of the autonomous individual. The response has been to draw on more public health focused ethics, ‘if demand outstrips the ability to deliver to existing standards, more strictly utilitarian considerations will have to be applied, and decisions about how to meet the individual's need will give way to decisions about how to maximise overall benefit’.2 Alongside this, effective control of lasixs requires that we all adopt strategies to reduce disease transmission such as the lockdown measures instituted by governments worldwide.

Individual liberties are curtailed for the greater good.Together, these factors shift the weighting of ethical does lasix cause sweating concepts to emphasise the individual within a community.3 4 For many years, public health ethicists and practitioners have drawn attention to the importance of the health of the whole community5 and the broader determinants of health, including the built environment and the way that society is structured.6 7 Public health emergencies, such as hypertension medications, demonstrate our mutual dependencies and highlight the need to prioritise the interests of the community. The difficulty of balancing these tensions between the interests of the ‘wider community’ and the patient as the ‘first concern’ has been well rehearsed. In the reset period, how does lasix cause sweating to further the public good is contested.

Should health services prioritise the response to hypertension medications. Or should we now be trying does lasix cause sweating to give equal or greater priority to providing non-hypertension medications services?. It has been argued that the response to hypertension medications will produce much greater detrimental effects on population health than the disease itself, including the impact of those who need healthcare for non-hypertension medications conditions not receiving treatment.8 9 Thus, in the current lasix, how to promote the public good is by no means clear and which wider community’s interests should be prioritised needs careful ethical consideration.Attention also needs to be paid to relationships between healthcare professionals and patients, as elements of non-verbal communication are inhibited by wearing masks.

The calming and reassuring gesture does lasix cause sweating of touch is prohibited or distorted by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). And patients have to attend appointments on their own without any support, no matter how difficult or traumatic the consultation is expected to be.10 This raises important ethical questions about how the demands of control should be balanced against the need for personalised, dignified and supportive care. Responding to these competing demands can result in moral distress for healthcare professionals who feel ill-prepared or unable to pursue ethically appropriate actions.11 hypertension medications has created new and uncertain circumstances that continue to disrupt our understandings of what ‘good care’ looks like and, in so doing, shifts the underpinning values or assumptions on which care is based, raising new ethical considerations for day-to-day decision making.Resource allocationResource allocation is a perennial problem in health systems and the persistence of hypertension medications will magnify concerns about National Health Service (NHS) resources long after the first wave.

With the suspension of many non-hypertension medications services from March 2020 in the UK, the does lasix cause sweating backlog of demand for non-hypertension medications services has grown, and the pressures on healthcare services are even greater. At the same time, healthcare is necessarily less efficient because of hypertension medications control precautions. Each healthcare interaction takes longer because of the time it takes to clean equipment and the treatment area, don and doff PPE, does lasix cause sweating and patients cannot be left waiting in shared rooms but must be tightly scheduled.In the first wave of the lasix, the analysis focused on resource allocation between patients with hypertension medications.12 In this reset period, attention must now turn to how to allocate resources between those with hypertension medications and all other patients, including those whose conditions are not life-threatening and these kinds of decisions need focused ethical scrutiny.What should be done?.

Guidance on ethical responses for the acute phase of a lasix is readily available.13 This is not the case when considering how health systems ought to reset in the immediate aftermath of a lasix or other public health emergency. We are at a juncture where the challenges brought on by the response to hypertension medications are forcing the re-evaluation of does lasix cause sweating traditional clinical ethical approaches. The theoretical basis is shifting to give greater weight to the interests of the community as a whole.

For example, the principle of justice may need to be given greater prominence, as well as a more self-conscious and widespread inclusion of does lasix cause sweating values such as solidarity and reciprocity in decision making at both individual and organisational levels.14The lasix has also highlighted how longstanding health, housing, financial and racial inequalities interact with the hypertension medications lasix, exacting a disproportionate impact on those already facing disadvantage and discrimination.15 In the healthcare context, an additional dimension to this is the disproportionate impact of hypertension medications on healthcare workers from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.16 As Richard Horton has argued, hypertension medications is not a lasix it is a syndemic. Seeing hypertension medications as a syndemic directs the focus towards the social and biological interactions that increase someone’s susceptibility to worse health outcomes.17 Consequently, in the reset phase, ethical decision making must pay more attention to the interaction between hypertension medications and longstanding health and socioeconomic inequalities.The speed of response necessary for the first wave of the hypertension medications lasix meant that decisions were made with little public scrutiny or consultation.18 But this approach cannot be justified in the reset period. The statutory, and ethical, obligation to maintain public involvement in decisions relating to service provision was reiterated by NHS England in March 2020.19 And this obligation extends to the scrutiny of the ethical values does lasix cause sweating and arguments that underpin—implicitly or explicitly—the ways that services are reconfigured and the decisions about which patients and staff will bear the costs of reconfiguration.The transition through repeated waves of hypertension medications, while not just re-establishing but also resetting NHS services, will require new ways of thinking about how to integrate public health, organisational and systems-based approaches with clinical ethics.

All health systems need to think about which ethical considerations are important in the reset period, which values and interests should take precedence, and how competing interests can and should be managed. These matters deserve more explicit consideration in ethical and practitioner literature and much wider public consultation..

On 22nd September buy real lasix online 2020 the UK Government Online viagra prescription announced new lockdown restrictions to supress the hypertension medications lasix, with some areas of England having more restrictive lockdown guidance. Students in a number of cities have been confined to their halls of residences after outbreaks of hypertension medications and in Manchester security guards were preventing students leaving the buildings. The scientific community are, unsurprisingly, divided over the question of how far lockdowns should extend.1 Monday 21st September 2020 saw the publication of two open letter to the buy real lasix online UK government and Chief Medical Officers. One group, Sunetra Gupta et al,2 argued for a selective lockdown targeting the most vulnerable. The other, headed by Trisha Greenhalgh, arguing that attempts to suppress the lasix should operate across the whole community.3 As we enter what appears to be a second wave of hypertension medications s and accompanying lockdown measures, ethical debates over the appropriateness and extent of such measures are critical.Julian Savulescu and James Cameron4 in their article on lockdown of the elderly and why this is not ageist, put forward the case that, ‘an appropriate approach may be to lift the general lockdown but implement selective isolation of the elderly.’ Their central claim is that buy real lasix online selective isolation of the elderly is to be preferred to imposing lockdown on all members of society.

The aim of lockdown, restricting movement and key activities, is designed to reduce the number of deaths from hypertension medications and also to prevent the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed. As the elderly are at significantly more risk of having severe cases buy real lasix online of hypertension medications and therefore more likely to place demands on healthcare services, they are clearly prime candidates for lockdown measures, measures that will not only benefit them but the whole of society. This is not ageist as they point out that differential treatment is not always discrimination if there is a morally relevant reason for the differential treatment. The morally relevant reason buy real lasix online in this case is that the elderly, and other groups who may be vulnerable to hypertension medications, are at greater risk of adverse effects from hypertension medications and consequently more likely to burden the heath service if they get hypertension medications. Even if this is discrimination they claim that it would be proportionate, as it benefits both the elderly and the wider population.

Savulescu and Cameron argue that buy real lasix online to require everyone to be lockdown is the levelling down of equality – that is. €˜In order for there to be equality, people who could be better off are made worse off in order to achieve equality.’ And in their view such levelling down is ‘morally repugnant’ and unethical.In his response to Savulescu and Cameron, Jonathan Hughes5 takes issue with their claim that general lockdown measures that affect all members of society equally are a form of levelling down of equality. Hughes argues that the claim that the levelling down of equality is always unethical can be challenged, but his main argument is that ‘the choice to maintain a general lockdown, rather than easing it for the young while maintaining it for the elderly, is not an instance of levelling down.’ For selective lockdown of the elderly to be an instance of levelling down of equality, it would have to make everyone else worse off with no additional benefit to the elderly. However, Hughes argues that a general lockdown does produce benefits or reduce burdens for the buy real lasix online elderly and hence is not the levelling down of equality. General lockdown will result in lower levels in the wider population and thus the elderly are less likely to contract hypertension medications.

Even during lockdown many elderly people have carers or service providers visiting them to perform caring responsibilities and with lower general rates these visits are less likely to result buy real lasix online in the spread of . Hence, the elderly are less likely to become a burden on the health service and lower levels of will mean an easing of lockdown for everyone sooner. €˜These considerations demonstrate that maintaining a general lockdown in preference to selective lockdown of the elderly and vulnerable need not only equalise the burdens by making the young and healthy worse off, but can benefit buy real lasix online the elderly in absolute as well as relative terms.’5As both Savulescu and Cameron, and Hughes note there is an issue of proportionality that needs to be considered. Savulescu and Cameron give three reasons why the selective lockdown of the elderly, the restriction of their liberty, is proportionate. The benefits buy real lasix online to others are significant.

The restriction will produce benefit for the elderly. And finally, this is buy real lasix online the option that results in the least amount of liberty restriction. Hughes also points out, as do Savulescu and Cameron, that the harms to the elderly due to lockdown might be greater than for other groups, and therefore a general lockdown could be justified on the grounds of Parfit’s Priority View, that benefiting the worse off is more important.This raises the problem of how we determine who is worse off in this scenario, as both sets of authors point out that the elderly may have fewer social networks and hence be more socially isolated and find lockdown particularly hard. Further, if they only have a limited time to live, lockdown may present a relatively greater loss. However, the young, who are facing huge disruption to their social development, their education and a curbing buy real lasix online of their freedoms and life choices at critical junctures (ie, going to University and being away from home for the first time), may want to argue that they are much more greatly harmed than the elderly.

These potential inter-generational trade-offs need to be debated, and Stephen John argues we need to think about lockdown in terms of intergenerational justice. He argues age is a buy real lasix online relevant categorization for discussing lockdown policies in relation to hypertension medications, as it is generally ‘an epistemically robust category, which can be operationalized.’3 and has particular significance for the aetiology of hypertension medications. As John observes, ‘However we approach the ethics of lockdown, we need to do ethical work in deciding how to describe the effects of lockdown in the first place. In turn, I want to suggest that this process is an important, although easily overlooked site of ethical and political contestation.’6 The effects of the hypertension medications response on those who are likely to suffer less from the disease, the younger generation, and on those whose non-hypertension medications healthcare has been suspended, according to some, buy real lasix online are likely to outweigh the harms caused by hypertension medications itself.7 Hence, describing the effects of hypertension medications and lockdown policies is no simple task.Elsewhere in this issue the Editor’s Choice article, Protecting health privacy even when privacy8 is lost by T.J. Kasperbauer considers the ethical and regulatory issues raised by the flow and sharing of data in modern healthcare.

He points out that buy real lasix online the predominant model of safeguarding the privacy of healthcare data is one of information control, that is an attempt to limit access to personal health data. However, limiting access has important implications for developments in healthcare such as leaning health systems and precision medicine, initiatives that require a large amount of health data. Limiting access could make many data-linkage schemes buy real lasix online unfeasible in practice. Such uses of data have the potential to make significant contributions to improving healthcare, both in terms of developing new treatments and at an organisational level, re-designing patient pathways and utilising healthcare resources more effectively.9 As an alternative to a control view of privacy, he suggests three measures that could be instituted to enable greater sharing of data, ‘such that pervasive data sharing would not automatically entail a loss of privacy.’ These are. Data obfuscation, this is making the data obscure so it is not possible to make inferences about individuals.

Penalisation of data buy real lasix online misuse. And transparency, making any access to our data transparent so that it discourages inappropriate data use and we can see who has accessed our data. There are trade-offs and difficulties with all these suggestions as Kasperbauer notes and although changing laws around privacy is possibly the most important and most effective of these measures buy real lasix online it is also the most difficult.The value of big data sets rests on their size and comprehensiveness, my desire to keep my health data private and opt out of big data initiatives can comprise their success. Therefore, we need to explore ways of balancing individual concerns over privacy, with using data for the greater good, and how to address possible tensions between the two.10 How policy makers and healthcare systems will manage information privacy will be a growing issue and is another example, along with the hypertension medications lasix,11 of how we are increasingly thinking about ethical issues at a community, rather than an individual, level and in wider global contexts. In a more connected bioethics, concepts such as justice and more community-based values such as stewardship, solidarity and reciprocity are likely to become key tools buy real lasix online to frame these debates.12hypertension medications continues to dominate 2020 and is likely to be a feature of our lives for some time to come.

Given this, how should health systems respond ethically to the persistent challenges of responding to the ongoing impact of the lasix?. Relatedly, what ethical values should underpin the resetting of health services after the buy real lasix online initial wave, knowing that local spikes and further waves now seem inevitable?. In this editorial, we outline some of the ethical challenges confronting those running health services as they try to resume non-hypertension medications-related services, and the downstream ethical implications these have for healthcare professionals’ day-to-day decision making. This is a phase of recovery, buy real lasix online resumption and renewal. A form of reset for health services.1 This reset phase will define the ‘new normal' for healthcare delivery, and it offers an opportunity to reimagine and change services for the better.

There are difficulties, however, healthcare systems are already weakened by austerity and the first wave of hypertension medications and remain under stress as the lasix continues. The reset period is operating alongside, rather than at the end, of the lasix and this creates buy real lasix online difficult ethical choices.Ethical challenges of resetBalancing the greater good with individual carelasixs—and public health emergencies more generally—reinforce approaches to ethics that emphasise or derive from the interests of communities, rather than those grounded in the claims of the autonomous individual. The response has been to draw on more public health focused ethics, ‘if demand outstrips the ability to deliver to existing standards, more strictly utilitarian considerations will have to be applied, and decisions about how to meet the individual's need will give way to decisions about how to maximise overall benefit’.2 Alongside this, effective control of lasixs requires that we all adopt strategies to reduce disease transmission such as the lockdown measures instituted by governments worldwide. Individual liberties are curtailed for the greater good.Together, these factors shift the weighting of ethical concepts to emphasise the individual within a community.3 4 For many years, public health ethicists and practitioners have drawn attention to the importance of the health of the whole community5 and the broader determinants of health, including the built environment and the way that society is structured.6 7 Public health buy real lasix online emergencies, such as hypertension medications, demonstrate our mutual dependencies and highlight the need to prioritise the interests of the community. The difficulty of balancing these tensions between the interests of the ‘wider community’ and the patient as the ‘first concern’ has been well rehearsed.

In the reset period, how to further the buy real lasix online public good is contested. Should health services prioritise the response to hypertension medications. Or should we now be trying to give equal buy real lasix online or greater priority to providing non-hypertension medications services?. It has been argued that the response to hypertension medications will produce much greater detrimental effects on population health than the disease itself, including the impact of those who need healthcare for non-hypertension medications conditions not receiving treatment.8 9 Thus, in the current lasix, how to promote the public good is by no means clear and which wider community’s interests should be prioritised needs careful ethical consideration.Attention also needs to be paid to relationships between healthcare professionals and patients, as elements of non-verbal communication are inhibited by wearing masks. The calming and reassuring gesture of touch is prohibited or distorted by the use buy real lasix online of personal protective equipment (PPE).

And patients have to attend appointments on their own without any support, no matter how difficult or traumatic the consultation is expected to be.10 This raises important ethical questions about how the demands of control should be balanced against the need for personalised, dignified and supportive care. Responding to these competing demands can result in moral distress for healthcare professionals who feel ill-prepared or unable to pursue ethically appropriate actions.11 hypertension medications has created new and uncertain circumstances that continue to disrupt our understandings of what ‘good care’ looks like and, in so doing, shifts the underpinning values or assumptions on which care is based, raising new ethical considerations for day-to-day decision making.Resource allocationResource allocation is a perennial problem in health systems and the persistence of hypertension medications will magnify concerns about National Health Service (NHS) resources long after the first wave. With the suspension of many non-hypertension medications services from March 2020 in the UK, the backlog of demand for non-hypertension medications services has grown, and the pressures on healthcare buy real lasix online services are even greater. At the same time, healthcare is necessarily less efficient because of hypertension medications control precautions. Each healthcare interaction takes longer because of the time buy real lasix online it takes to clean equipment and the treatment area, don and doff PPE, and patients cannot be left waiting in shared rooms but must be tightly scheduled.In the first wave of the lasix, the analysis focused on resource allocation between patients with hypertension medications.12 In this reset period, attention must now turn to how to allocate resources between those with hypertension medications and all other patients, including those whose conditions are not life-threatening and these kinds of decisions need focused ethical scrutiny.What should be done?.

Guidance on ethical responses for the acute phase of a lasix is readily available.13 This is not the case when considering how health systems ought to reset in the immediate aftermath of a lasix or other public health emergency. We are at a juncture where the challenges brought on by the response to hypertension medications are forcing the re-evaluation of traditional clinical ethical buy real lasix online approaches. The theoretical basis is shifting to give greater weight to the interests of the community as a whole. For example, the principle of justice may need to be given greater prominence, as well as a more self-conscious and widespread inclusion of values such as solidarity and reciprocity in decision making at both individual and organisational levels.14The lasix has also highlighted how longstanding health, housing, financial and racial inequalities interact with the hypertension medications lasix, exacting a disproportionate impact on those already facing disadvantage and discrimination.15 In the healthcare context, an additional dimension to this is the disproportionate impact of hypertension medications on healthcare workers from Black, Asian and minority buy real lasix online ethnic communities.16 As Richard Horton has argued, hypertension medications is not a lasix it is a syndemic. Seeing hypertension medications as a syndemic directs the focus towards the social and biological interactions that increase someone’s susceptibility to worse health outcomes.17 Consequently, in the reset phase, ethical decision making must pay more attention to the interaction between hypertension medications and longstanding health and socioeconomic inequalities.The speed of response necessary for the first wave of the hypertension medications lasix meant that decisions were made with little public scrutiny or consultation.18 But this approach cannot be justified in the reset period.

The statutory, and ethical, obligation to maintain public involvement in decisions relating to service provision was reiterated by NHS England in March 2020.19 And this obligation extends to the scrutiny of the ethical values and arguments that underpin—implicitly or explicitly—the ways that services are reconfigured and the decisions about which patients and staff will bear the costs of reconfiguration.The transition through repeated waves of hypertension medications, while not just re-establishing but also resetting NHS services, will require new ways of thinking about how to integrate public health, organisational and buy real lasix online systems-based approaches with clinical ethics. All health systems need to think about which ethical considerations are important in the reset period, which values and interests should take precedence, and how competing interests can and should be managed. These matters deserve more explicit consideration in ethical and practitioner literature and much wider public consultation..

Standard dimensioner og legeringer
Teoretisk vægt for standard dimensioner kg/m

D x d mm

JM 1-15 Rødgods

JM 3-15
Tin-bronze

JM 5-15
Bly-tin-bronze

JM 7-15/20 Aluminiumbronze

10x0

EXT 0,6

13x0

1.2

1.2

EXT 1,0

16x0

1.8

1.8

EXT 1,5

19x0

2.5

2.5

EXT 2,2

21x0

3.1

3.1

3.1

EXT 2,6

23x0

3,7

*3,7

EXT 3,2

26x0

4.7

4.7

4.7

EXT 4,0

26x14

3.5

3.5

3.5

26x18

2.5

28x0

5,9

5,9

EXT 4,7

29x13

4.7

4.7

4.7

29x19

3.6

31x0

6.7

6.7

6.7

EXT 5,7

31x14

5.5

*5,5

5.5

31x19

*4,5

33x0

7.6

7.6

EXT 6,5

33x13

6.4

*6,4

33x19

5.3

5.3

4.6

33x23

3.9

36x0

9.1

9.1

EXT 7,7

36x14

7.9

36x19

6.8

6.8

6.8

36x24

5.4

38x0

10.6

*10,6

EXT 9,1

39x26

5.9

39x28

5.2

41x0

11.8

11.8

11.8

EXT 10,0

41x13

10.6

10.6

41x18

9.5

9.5

9.5

41x23

8.1

41x28

6.3

42x28

5.9

43x0

12.9

12.9

43x26

*8.2

8.2

8.2

43x33

5.3

46x0

14.8

14.8

EXT 12,6

46x13

13.6

13.6

46x18

12.5

46x23

11.1

11.1

11.1

46x28

9.3

46x33

7.2

7.2

7.2

47x23

10.0

47x28

8.5

51x0

18.2

18.2

18.2

15.5

51x18

15.9

15.9

15.9

51x23

14.5

51x28

12.7

12.7

12.7

51x33

10.6

51x38

8.1

8.1

52x18

14.2

52x23

13.0

52x28

11.5

52x38

7.5

56x0

21.9

21.9

18.7

56x18

*19.6

56x23

18.2

56x28

16.4

56x33

14.3

14.3

56x38

11.8

56x43

9,0

57x43

8.4

61x0

26.0

26.0

26.0

22.2

61x18

23.7

23.7

61x23

22.3

61x28

20.5

20.5

61x33

18.4

61x38

15.9

15.9

61x43

13.1

61x48

9.9

9.9

9.9

62x18

21.0

62x28

18.3

62x38

14.3

62x48

9.2

67x0

31.0

31.0

26.8

67x18

29.1

67x23

*27,7

67x28

25.9

67x33

*23,8

67x38

21.3

67x43

18.5

18.5

15.8

67x48

15.3

67x53

11.7

72x0

35.8

35.8

35.8

30.9

72x18

34.0

34.0

72x23

*32,5

27.8

72x28

30.8

30.8

72x33

28.6

72x38

26.1

26.1

22.3

72x43

23.3

72x48

20.1

20.1

17.2

72x53

16.6

16.6

72x58

12.7

10.9

77x0

41.0

41.0

35.4

77x23

37.7

77x28

*35,9

77x33

33.8

77x38

31.4

31.4

77x43

28.5

77x48

25.3

77x53

21.8

21.8

77x58

17.9

15.3

77x63

*13.7

82x0

46.4

46.4

46.4

40.1

82x28

41.5

41.5

41.5

82x33

*39,4

82x38

36.9

31.5

82x43

34.1

34.1

82x48

30.9

26.4

82x53

27.4

82x58

23.5

23.5

20.1

82x63

19.3

82x68

14.7

12.5

87x0

52.3

52.3

45.2

87x28

47.4

*47,4

87x33

*45,3

87x38

*42,8

36.6

87x43

*40,0

87x48

36.8

87x53

33.3

87x58

29.4

29.4

25.1

87x63

25.2

87x68

20.6

87x73

15.7

92x0

58.5

58.5

58.5

50.5

92x28

53.7

92x33

*51,5

*51,5

92x38

49.0

92x43

*46.2

92x48

43.1

43.1

36.8

92x53

*39.5

92x58

35.6

30.4

92x63

31.4

92x68

26.8

26.8

22.9

92x73

21.9

92x78

16.6

97x0

65.8

65.8

56.2

97x38

55.6

97x43

*52,8

97x48

49.6

97x53

*46,1

97x58

*42,3

97x63

38.0

97x68

33.4

33.4

97x73

28.5

97x78

23.2

97x83

*17.6

102x0

72.7

72.7

72.7

62.1

102x38

62.6

102x48

56.6

56.6

48.4

102x58

49.2

49.2

42.0

102x68

40.4

34.5

102x73

35.0

102x78

30.2

25.8

102x83

*24.6

102x88

18.6

107x58

56.7

107x63

52.2

52.2

107x73

*42.8

107x78

37.5

107x83

31.9

107x88

25.9

112x0

87.7

87.7

87.7

74.9

112x38

77.6

112x48

71.5

71.5

61.1

112x58

64.1

54.8

112x63

60.0

112x68

55.3

47.3

112x78

45.1

45.1

112x88

33.6

28.7

112x93

27.2

117x63

67.9

117x73

58.4

58.4

117x83

47.5

117x93

*35.2

117x98

28.6

122x0

104.0

104.0

104.0

88.9

122x68

71.7

71.7

61.2

122x78

61.5

122x88

49.2

42.6

122x98

36.9

31.5

122x103

*29,9

127x63

85.0

85.0

85.0

127x73

75.5

127x83

64.6

127x93

52.3

127x103

38.6

127x108

31.2

132x0

121.8

121.8

122.0

104.0

132x68

89.1

132x78

79.2

67.7

132x88

67.6

132x98

53.9

132x108

40.2

135x0

108.7

137x73

93.9

137x93

*70,7

137x103

57.0

142x0

140.9

140.9

141.5

120.4

142x58

117.4

142x78

98.4

98.4

142x88

74.1

142x98

73.0

142x108

58.7

142x118

43.6

147x103

76.9

147x123

45.3

152x0

161.5

161.5

162.0

137.9

152x88

107.3

152x98

94.3

94.3

80.6

152x108

79.9

152x118

64.1

64.1

152x128

47.0

162x0

183.4

183.4

183.5

156.7

162x98

116.3

116.3

116.3

162x118

86.1

73.5

162x128

68.9

162x138

50.3

50.3

172x0

207.0

207.0

172x108

125.2

*107,0

172x128

92.2

172x138

73.6

172x148

53.7

53.7

182x0

232.0

232.0

EXT 197.8

182x118

134.1

182x128

117.5

*99,9

182x138

98.4

182x148

78.4

182x158

57.0

57.0

192x0

258.0

258.0

EXT 220.1

192x128

143.1

192x148

104.5

*89,3

192x168

60.4

202x0

285.0

285.0

202x98

218.0

218.0

218.0

202x138

152.0

152.0

202x148

*112,8

202x158

110.7

202x178

63.7

205x82

*246,8

212x138

180.4

212x148

161.0

212x158

*119,2

212x168

116.8

212x178

92.6

212x188

66.0

222x0

344.0

344.0

222x98

277.2

277.2

222x148

191.3

222x168

147.1

*125,7

222x178

123.0

222x188

97.4

232x158

201.6

201.6

232x178

154.7

*132,1

232x188

129.1

232x198

102.1

242x168

212.0

212.0

242x188

162.2

*138,6

242x198

135.3

242x208

106.9

252x0

444.0

444.0

252x178

222.3

*189,9

252x198

169.8

252x208

141.4

252x218

111.6

262x198

*175,7

262x218

147.6

262x228

116.4

272x168

319.7

319.7

272x228

153.7

272x238

121.1

276x0

*532,5

282x218

*191,0

282x238

159.9

282x248

125.9

292x188

348.8

292x248

166.0

302x148

484.4

302x198

363.3

363.3

*310,4

302x258

172.1

322x238

*280,8

332x248

*290,9

332x273

249.4

352x148

713.0

362x293

315.8

*269,8

392x343

251.6

402x148

976.5

402x348

*241,8

Firkant stænger
Standard dimensioner og legeringer
Standardlængder: 500, 1000, 2000 mm

A x B mm

JM 1-15 Rødgods

JM 3-15
Tin-bronze

JM 7-15/20 Aluminiumbronze

30x30

*6,8

32x32

9,1

9,1

40x40

*12,0

42x42

15,7

15,7

45x45

*15,2

52x12

5,6

5,6

52x14

6,5

6,5

52x18

8,3

8,3

52x22

10,2

10,2

52x52

24,1

24,1

55x55

*22,7

60x60

*27,4

67x12

7,2

7,2

67x14

8,3

8,3

67x18

10,7

10,7

67x22

13,1

13,1

67x32

19,1

19,1

16,3

70x70

*43,6

80x42

25,8

80x51

31.3

82x12

8,8

8,8

82x14

10,2

10,2

82x18

13,1

13,1

82x22

16,1

16,1

102x12

10,9

10,9

102x14

12,7

12,7

102x18

16,3

16,3

102x22

20,2

20,2

102x52

47

103x30

*23,5

105x55

44.2

122x18

19,5

19,5

122x22

23,9

23,9

130x63

62.6

130x65

74,7

142x18

22,7

22,7

142x22

27,8

27,8

150x70

*79,8

150x90

102,6

162x18

26

26

162x22

31,7

31,7

162x72

103

182x18

29,2

29,2

182x22

35,6

35,6

185x90

*126,5

202x18

32,4

32,4

202x22

39,6

39,6

202x30

*46,1

Sekskant stænger
Standard dimensioner og legeringer
Standardlængder: 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 mm. Sekskantstænger m/ hul fremstilles på bestilling

NV mm

JM 1-15 Rødgods

17

2,2

18

2,5

22

3,7

24

4,4

26

5,2

28

6

32

7,9

36

10

44

14,9

50

19,3