Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. health insurers that provide Medicare Advantage plans to elderly and disabled Americans will receive government payments in 2017 that are 0.85 percent higher on average than in 2016, reflecting small anticipated growth in medical costs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said on Monday.

Health and Human Services' final plan to raise payments is a bit lower than the 1.35 percent increase the agency had proposed in February. It said the lower figure reflects revisions to medical services cost calculations.

In addition, the agency said it planned to introduce a two-year transition period to implement reductions in payments to insurers that offer employer-sponsored prescription drug plans for retirees. After it proposed the cuts to 2017 payments in February, insurers and other lobbying groups said the agency was too aggressive.

Insurers including UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc and Anthem Inc manage health benefits for more than 17 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

The other more than 30 million people eligible for Medicare coverage are part of the government-run fee-for-service program.

Each year the government sets out how it will reimburse insurers for the healthcare services their members use. Payments vary by region, the quality rating earned by the plan, and the relative health of the members.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. health insurers that provide Medicare Advantage plans to elderly and disabled Americans will receive government payments in 2017 that are 0.85 percent higher on average than in 2016, reflecting small anticipated growth in medical costs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said on Monday.

Health and Human Services' final plan to raise payments is a bit lower than the 1.35 percent increase the agency had proposed in February. It said the lower figure reflects revisions to medical services cost calculations.

In addition, the agency said it planned to introduce a two-year transition period to implement reductions in payments to insurers that offer employer-sponsored prescription drug plans for retirees. After it proposed the cuts to 2017 payments in February, insurers and other lobbying groups said the agency was too aggressive.

Insurers including UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc and Anthem Inc manage health benefits for more than 17 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

The other more than 30 million people eligible for Medicare coverage are part of the government-run fee-for-service program.

Each year the government sets out how it will reimburse insurers for the healthcare services their members use. Payments vary by region, the quality rating earned by the plan, and the relative health of the members.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. health insurers that provide Medicare Advantage plans to elderly and disabled Americans will receive government payments in 2017 that are 0.85 percent higher on average than in 2016, reflecting small anticipated growth in medical costs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said on Monday.

Health and Human Services' final plan to raise payments is a bit lower than the 1.35 percent increase the agency had proposed in February. It said the lower figure reflects revisions to medical services cost calculations.

In addition, the agency said it planned to introduce a two-year transition period to implement reductions in payments to insurers that offer employer-sponsored prescription drug plans for retirees. After it proposed the cuts to 2017 payments in February, insurers and other lobbying groups said the agency was too aggressive.

Insurers including UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc and Anthem Inc manage health benefits for more than 17 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

The other more than 30 million people eligible for Medicare coverage are part of the government-run fee-for-service program.

Each year the government sets out how it will reimburse insurers for the healthcare services their members use. Payments vary by region, the quality rating earned by the plan, and the relative health of the members.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Climate change can be expected to boost the number of annual premature U.S. deaths from heat waves in coming decades and to increase mental health problems from extreme weather like hurricanes and floods, a U.S. study said on Monday.

"I don't know that we've seen something like this before, where we have a force that has such a multitude of effects," Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told reporters at the White House about the study. "There's not one single source that we can target with climate change, there are multiple paths that we have to address."

Heat waves were estimated to cause 670 to 1,300 U.S. deaths annually in recent years. Premature U.S. deaths from heat waves can be expected to rise more than 27,000 per year by 2100, from a 1990 baseline, one scenario in the study said. The rise outpaced projected decreases in deaths from extreme cold.

Extreme heat can cause more forest fires and increase pollen counts and the resulting poor air quality threatens people with asthma and other lung conditions. The report said poor air quality will likely lead to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, hospital visits, and acute respiratory illness each year by 2030.

Climate change also threatens mental health, the study found. Post traumatic stress disorder, depression, and general anxiety can all result in places that suffer extreme weather linked to climate change, such as hurricanes and floods. More study needs to be done on assessing the risks to mental health, it said.

The peer-reviewed study by eight federal agencies can be found at: https://health2016.globalchange.gov/

Cases of mosquito and tick-borne diseases can also be expected to increase, though the study, completed over three years, did not look at whether locally-transmitted Zika virus cases would be more likely to hit the U.S.

President Barack Obama's administration has taken steps to cut carbon emissions by speeding a switch from coal and oil to cleaner energy sources. In February, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the White House's climate ambitions by putting a hold on Obama's plan to cut emissions from power plants. Administration officials say the plan is on safe legal footing.John Holdren, Obama's senior science adviser, said steps the world agreed to in Paris last year to curb emissions through 2030 can help fight the risks to health.

"We will need a big encore after 2030 . . . in order to avoid the bulk of the worst impacts described in this report,"he said.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Climate change can be expected to boost the number of annual premature U.S. deaths from heat waves in coming decades and to increase mental health problems from extreme weather like hurricanes and floods, a U.S. study said on Monday.

"I don't know that we've seen something like this before, where we have a force that has such a multitude of effects," Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told reporters at the White House about the study. "There's not one single source that we can target with climate change, there are multiple paths that we have to address."

Heat waves were estimated to cause 670 to 1,300 U.S. deaths annually in recent years. Premature U.S. deaths from heat waves can be expected to rise more than 27,000 per year by 2100, from a 1990 baseline, one scenario in the study said. The rise outpaced projected decreases in deaths from extreme cold.

Extreme heat can cause more forest fires and increase pollen counts and the resulting poor air quality threatens people with asthma and other lung conditions. The report said poor air quality will likely lead to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, hospital visits, and acute respiratory illness each year by 2030.

Climate change also threatens mental health, the study found. Post traumatic stress disorder, depression, and general anxiety can all result in places that suffer extreme weather linked to climate change, such as hurricanes and floods. More study needs to be done on assessing the risks to mental health, it said.

The peer-reviewed study by eight federal agencies can be found at: https://health2016.globalchange.gov/

Cases of mosquito and tick-borne diseases can also be expected to increase, though the study, completed over three years, did not look at whether locally-transmitted Zika virus cases would be more likely to hit the U.S.

President Barack Obama's administration has taken steps to cut carbon emissions by speeding a switch from coal and oil to cleaner energy sources. In February, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the White House's climate ambitions by putting a hold on Obama's plan to cut emissions from power plants. Administration officials say the plan is on safe legal footing.John Holdren, Obama's senior science adviser, said steps the world agreed to in Paris last year to curb emissions through 2030 can help fight the risks to health.

"We will need a big encore after 2030 . . . in order to avoid the bulk of the worst impacts described in this report,"he said.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Climate change can be expected to boost the number of annual premature U.S. deaths from heat waves in coming decades and to increase mental health problems from extreme weather like hurricanes and floods, a U.S. study said on Monday.

"I don't know that we've seen something like this before, where we have a force that has such a multitude of effects," Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told reporters at the White House about the study. "There's not one single source that we can target with climate change, there are multiple paths that we have to address."

Heat waves were estimated to cause 670 to 1,300 U.S. deaths annually in recent years. Premature U.S. deaths from heat waves can be expected to rise more than 27,000 per year by 2100, from a 1990 baseline, one scenario in the study said. The rise outpaced projected decreases in deaths from extreme cold.

Extreme heat can cause more forest fires and increase pollen counts and the resulting poor air quality threatens people with asthma and other lung conditions. The report said poor air quality will likely lead to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, hospital visits, and acute respiratory illness each year by 2030.

Climate change also threatens mental health, the study found. Post traumatic stress disorder, depression, and general anxiety can all result in places that suffer extreme weather linked to climate change, such as hurricanes and floods. More study needs to be done on assessing the risks to mental health, it said.

The peer-reviewed study by eight federal agencies can be found at: https://health2016.globalchange.gov/

Cases of mosquito and tick-borne diseases can also be expected to increase, though the study, completed over three years, did not look at whether locally-transmitted Zika virus cases would be more likely to hit the U.S.

President Barack Obama's administration has taken steps to cut carbon emissions by speeding a switch from coal and oil to cleaner energy sources. In February, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the White House's climate ambitions by putting a hold on Obama's plan to cut emissions from power plants. Administration officials say the plan is on safe legal footing.John Holdren, Obama's senior science adviser, said steps the world agreed to in Paris last year to curb emissions through 2030 can help fight the risks to health.

"We will need a big encore after 2030 . . . in order to avoid the bulk of the worst impacts described in this report,"he said.

(Reuters) - Patients with hypertension and moderate risk of heart disease slashed their long-term risk of heart attack and stroke 40 percent by taking a blood pressure medication as well as a statin cholesterol fighter, according to a large global study that could change medical practice.

Results from the trial, called HOPE-3, could prod far more doctors to add a statin to antihypertensive therapy for such patients who have no prior history of heart attack or stroke, researchers said.

The data was presented on Saturday at the annual scientific session of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

To enroll in the trial, patients had to have at least one risk factor for heart disease such as obesity or smoking, in addition to being over 60 for women and over 55 for men.

"Intermediate-risk people with hypertension had a clear benefit when taking both a statin and an agent that lowers blood pressure," Dr. Salim Yusuf, a professor of cardiology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada who headed the 12,000-patient global study, said in an interview.

Patients with systolic blood pressure of 140 and higher were deemed in the study to have high blood pressure. They experienced a 40 percent reduced risk of heart attack and stroke over a six-year period when taking AstraZeneca Plc's statin Crestor (rosuvastatin) as well as a combination tablet containing blood pressure treatment candesartan and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide.

Patients with normal or low systolic pressure had the same approximate 25 percent reduction in cardiovascular events as seen among patients in one arm of the study who took only statins.

Yusuf said the trial underscores that if a patient at moderate heart risk has high blood pressure, defined as 140 or higher, "give them both a statin and a blood pressure medication as a matter of course." He said statins are not automatically given now to patients with hypertension that are at only moderate risk of heart attack or stroke.

Yusuf's trial included research centers in China, India, Latin America, Africa and Canada, but not the United States because of far greater research costs there. The trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca.

A separate study published in November found that lowering blood pressure to below 120 dramatically reduced heart failure and risk of death in adults aged 50 and older. But the five-year U.S. government-sponsored study of more than 9,300 patients showed a higher rate of adverse side effects, including kidney damage, in the aggressively treated patients.

(Reuters) - Patients with hypertension and moderate risk of heart disease slashed their long-term risk of heart attack and stroke 40 percent by taking a blood pressure medication as well as a statin cholesterol fighter, according to a large global study that could change medical practice.

Results from the trial, called HOPE-3, could prod far more doctors to add a statin to antihypertensive therapy for such patients who have no prior history of heart attack or stroke, researchers said.

The data was presented on Saturday at the annual scientific session of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

To enroll in the trial, patients had to have at least one risk factor for heart disease such as obesity or smoking, in addition to being over 60 for women and over 55 for men.

"Intermediate-risk people with hypertension had a clear benefit when taking both a statin and an agent that lowers blood pressure," Dr. Salim Yusuf, a professor of cardiology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada who headed the 12,000-patient global study, said in an interview.

Patients with systolic blood pressure of 140 and higher were deemed in the study to have high blood pressure. They experienced a 40 percent reduced risk of heart attack and stroke over a six-year period when taking AstraZeneca Plc's statin Crestor (rosuvastatin) as well as a combination tablet containing blood pressure treatment candesartan and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide.

Patients with normal or low systolic pressure had the same approximate 25 percent reduction in cardiovascular events as seen among patients in one arm of the study who took only statins.

Yusuf said the trial underscores that if a patient at moderate heart risk has high blood pressure, defined as 140 or higher, "give them both a statin and a blood pressure medication as a matter of course." He said statins are not automatically given now to patients with hypertension that are at only moderate risk of heart attack or stroke.

Yusuf's trial included research centers in China, India, Latin America, Africa and Canada, but not the United States because of far greater research costs there. The trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca.

A separate study published in November found that lowering blood pressure to below 120 dramatically reduced heart failure and risk of death in adults aged 50 and older. But the five-year U.S. government-sponsored study of more than 9,300 patients showed a higher rate of adverse side effects, including kidney damage, in the aggressively treated patients.

(Reuters) - Patients with hypertension and moderate risk of heart disease slashed their long-term risk of heart attack and stroke 40 percent by taking a blood pressure medication as well as a statin cholesterol fighter, according to a large global study that could change medical practice.

Results from the trial, called HOPE-3, could prod far more doctors to add a statin to antihypertensive therapy for such patients who have no prior history of heart attack or stroke, researchers said.

The data was presented on Saturday at the annual scientific session of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

To enroll in the trial, patients had to have at least one risk factor for heart disease such as obesity or smoking, in addition to being over 60 for women and over 55 for men.

"Intermediate-risk people with hypertension had a clear benefit when taking both a statin and an agent that lowers blood pressure," Dr. Salim Yusuf, a professor of cardiology at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada who headed the 12,000-patient global study, said in an interview.

Patients with systolic blood pressure of 140 and higher were deemed in the study to have high blood pressure. They experienced a 40 percent reduced risk of heart attack and stroke over a six-year period when taking AstraZeneca Plc's statin Crestor (rosuvastatin) as well as a combination tablet containing blood pressure treatment candesartan and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide.

Patients with normal or low systolic pressure had the same approximate 25 percent reduction in cardiovascular events as seen among patients in one arm of the study who took only statins.

Yusuf said the trial underscores that if a patient at moderate heart risk has high blood pressure, defined as 140 or higher, "give them both a statin and a blood pressure medication as a matter of course." He said statins are not automatically given now to patients with hypertension that are at only moderate risk of heart attack or stroke.

Yusuf's trial included research centers in China, India, Latin America, Africa and Canada, but not the United States because of far greater research costs there. The trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca.

A separate study published in November found that lowering blood pressure to below 120 dramatically reduced heart failure and risk of death in adults aged 50 and older. But the five-year U.S. government-sponsored study of more than 9,300 patients showed a higher rate of adverse side effects, including kidney damage, in the aggressively treated patients.

(Reuters) - New ways of controlling cholesterol, including possibly directly injecting "good" HDL cholesterol into patients, need to be studied following the failure of promising treatments from Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc and Roche Holding AG, according to top heart researchers.

Lilly in October halted a 12,000-patient study of its experimental drug evacetrapib, an oral medication that in smaller earlier studies slashed "bad" LDL cholesterol and doubled levels of HDL.

But improved cholesterol levels did not prevent heart attacks and strokes, diminishing hopes for the approach to treating heart disease - by raising HDL through blockage of a protein called CETP.

Roche in 2012 scrapped its own CETP inhibitor after it also failed to help patients. Pfizer's similar drug was discontinued in 2006 after being linked to deaths in trials.

Although Merck & Co continues to develop its own CETP inhibitor in a 30,000-patient study expected to be completed next year, researchers on Sunday said the failures of the Lilly, Roche and Pfizer drugs bode poorly for it.

"Merck's drug is the fourth shot on goal for CETP inhibitors, but with disappointment or lack of success for the other agents you have to be increasingly pessimistic" about the class of drugs, said Dr. Stephen Nicholls, deputy director of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide, Australia. He was a lead investigator for the failed trial of Lilly's drug.

Nicholls and Dr. Steve Nissen, the head of cardiology for the Cleveland Clinic, who co-lead the evacetrapib study, on Sunday reviewed the baffling evacetrapib data in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

"This drug lowered LDL by 37 percent and raised HDL by 130 percent and had absolutely no effect" on preventing deaths and heart attacks, Nissen said in an interview.

Although other ways of raising HDL cholesterol might eventually prove protective, Nissen said all attempts so far have been fruitless.

Nicholls said he remains hopeful of future HDL therapies and is testing whether artificial HDL can be made in the laboratory and injected directly into high-risk heart patients. "There is enthusiasm it may be able to shrink plaque" in heart arteries, he said.

He said he is studying variations of that approach with French drugmaker Cerenis Therapeutics and the Medicines Company. Nicholls said another possible approach would be to instruct the liver to make more HDL.

(Reuters) - New ways of controlling cholesterol, including possibly directly injecting "good" HDL cholesterol into patients, need to be studied following the failure of promising treatments from Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc and Roche Holding AG, according to top heart researchers.

Lilly in October halted a 12,000-patient study of its experimental drug evacetrapib, an oral medication that in smaller earlier studies slashed "bad" LDL cholesterol and doubled levels of HDL.

But improved cholesterol levels did not prevent heart attacks and strokes, diminishing hopes for the approach to treating heart disease - by raising HDL through blockage of a protein called CETP.

Roche in 2012 scrapped its own CETP inhibitor after it also failed to help patients. Pfizer's similar drug was discontinued in 2006 after being linked to deaths in trials.

Although Merck & Co continues to develop its own CETP inhibitor in a 30,000-patient study expected to be completed next year, researchers on Sunday said the failures of the Lilly, Roche and Pfizer drugs bode poorly for it.

"Merck's drug is the fourth shot on goal for CETP inhibitors, but with disappointment or lack of success for the other agents you have to be increasingly pessimistic" about the class of drugs, said Dr. Stephen Nicholls, deputy director of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide, Australia. He was a lead investigator for the failed trial of Lilly's drug.

Nicholls and Dr. Steve Nissen, the head of cardiology for the Cleveland Clinic, who co-lead the evacetrapib study, on Sunday reviewed the baffling evacetrapib data in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

"This drug lowered LDL by 37 percent and raised HDL by 130 percent and had absolutely no effect" on preventing deaths and heart attacks, Nissen said in an interview.

Although other ways of raising HDL cholesterol might eventually prove protective, Nissen said all attempts so far have been fruitless.

Nicholls said he remains hopeful of future HDL therapies and is testing whether artificial HDL can be made in the laboratory and injected directly into high-risk heart patients. "There is enthusiasm it may be able to shrink plaque" in heart arteries, he said.

He said he is studying variations of that approach with French drugmaker Cerenis Therapeutics and the Medicines Company. Nicholls said another possible approach would be to instruct the liver to make more HDL.

(Reuters) - New ways of controlling cholesterol, including possibly directly injecting "good" HDL cholesterol into patients, need to be studied following the failure of promising treatments from Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc and Roche Holding AG, according to top heart researchers.

Lilly in October halted a 12,000-patient study of its experimental drug evacetrapib, an oral medication that in smaller earlier studies slashed "bad" LDL cholesterol and doubled levels of HDL.

But improved cholesterol levels did not prevent heart attacks and strokes, diminishing hopes for the approach to treating heart disease - by raising HDL through blockage of a protein called CETP.

Roche in 2012 scrapped its own CETP inhibitor after it also failed to help patients. Pfizer's similar drug was discontinued in 2006 after being linked to deaths in trials.

Although Merck & Co continues to develop its own CETP inhibitor in a 30,000-patient study expected to be completed next year, researchers on Sunday said the failures of the Lilly, Roche and Pfizer drugs bode poorly for it.

"Merck's drug is the fourth shot on goal for CETP inhibitors, but with disappointment or lack of success for the other agents you have to be increasingly pessimistic" about the class of drugs, said Dr. Stephen Nicholls, deputy director of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide, Australia. He was a lead investigator for the failed trial of Lilly's drug.

Nicholls and Dr. Steve Nissen, the head of cardiology for the Cleveland Clinic, who co-lead the evacetrapib study, on Sunday reviewed the baffling evacetrapib data in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

"This drug lowered LDL by 37 percent and raised HDL by 130 percent and had absolutely no effect" on preventing deaths and heart attacks, Nissen said in an interview.

Although other ways of raising HDL cholesterol might eventually prove protective, Nissen said all attempts so far have been fruitless.

Nicholls said he remains hopeful of future HDL therapies and is testing whether artificial HDL can be made in the laboratory and injected directly into high-risk heart patients. "There is enthusiasm it may be able to shrink plaque" in heart arteries, he said.

He said he is studying variations of that approach with French drugmaker Cerenis Therapeutics and the Medicines Company. Nicholls said another possible approach would be to instruct the liver to make more HDL.

(Reuters) - U.S. hospitals should brace for a surge in "ransomware" attacks by cyber criminals who infect and shut down computer networks, then demand payment in return for unlocking them, a non-profit healthcare group warned on Friday.

The Health Information Trust Alliance conducted a study of some 30 mid-sized U.S. hospitals late last year and found that 52 percent of them were infected with malicious software, HITRUST Chief Executive Daniel Nutkis told Reuters.

The most common type of malware was ransomware, Nutkis said, which was present in 35 percent of the hospitals included in the study of network traffic conducted by security software maker Trend Micro Inc.

Ransomware is malicious software that locks up data in computers and leaves messages demanding payment to recover the data. Last month, Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital in Los Angeles paid a ransom of $17,000 to regain access to its systems.

This week, an attack on MedStar Health forced the largest healthcare provider in Washington, D.C., to shut down much of its computer network. The Baltimore Sun reported a ransom of $18,500 was sought. MedStar declined to comment.

HITRUST said it expects such attacks to become more frequent because ransomware has turned into a profitable business for cyber criminals.

The results of the study, which HITRUST has yet to share with the public, demonstrate that hackers have moved away from focusing on stealing patient data, Nutkis said.

"If stuff isn't working, they move on. If stuff is working, they keep doing it," said Nutkis. "Organizations that are paying have considered their options, and unfortunately they don't have a lot of options."

Extortion has become more popular with cyber criminals because it is seen as a way to generate fast money, said Larry Whiteside, a healthcare expert with cyber security firm Optiv.

Stealing healthcare data is far more labour intensive, requiring attackers to keep their presence in a victim's network undetected for months as they steal data, then they need to find buyers, he added.

"With ransomware I'm going to get paid immediately," Whiteside said.

Frisco, Texas-based HITRUST's board includes executives from Anthem, Health Care Services, Humana, UnitedHealth and Walgreens.

(Reuters) - U.S. hospitals should brace for a surge in "ransomware" attacks by cyber criminals who infect and shut down computer networks, then demand payment in return for unlocking them, a non-profit healthcare group warned on Friday.

The Health Information Trust Alliance conducted a study of some 30 mid-sized U.S. hospitals late last year and found that 52 percent of them were infected with malicious software, HITRUST Chief Executive Daniel Nutkis told Reuters.

The most common type of malware was ransomware, Nutkis said, which was present in 35 percent of the hospitals included in the study of network traffic conducted by security software maker Trend Micro Inc.

Ransomware is malicious software that locks up data in computers and leaves messages demanding payment to recover the data. Last month, Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital in Los Angeles paid a ransom of $17,000 to regain access to its systems.

This week, an attack on MedStar Health forced the largest healthcare provider in Washington, D.C., to shut down much of its computer network. The Baltimore Sun reported a ransom of $18,500 was sought. MedStar declined to comment.

HITRUST said it expects such attacks to become more frequent because ransomware has turned into a profitable business for cyber criminals.

The results of the study, which HITRUST has yet to share with the public, demonstrate that hackers have moved away from focusing on stealing patient data, Nutkis said.

"If stuff isn't working, they move on. If stuff is working, they keep doing it," said Nutkis. "Organizations that are paying have considered their options, and unfortunately they don't have a lot of options."

Extortion has become more popular with cyber criminals because it is seen as a way to generate fast money, said Larry Whiteside, a healthcare expert with cyber security firm Optiv.

Stealing healthcare data is far more labour intensive, requiring attackers to keep their presence in a victim's network undetected for months as they steal data, then they need to find buyers, he added.

"With ransomware I'm going to get paid immediately," Whiteside said.

Frisco, Texas-based HITRUST's board includes executives from Anthem, Health Care Services, Humana, UnitedHealth and Walgreens.

(Reuters) - U.S. hospitals should brace for a surge in "ransomware" attacks by cyber criminals who infect and shut down computer networks, then demand payment in return for unlocking them, a non-profit healthcare group warned on Friday.

The Health Information Trust Alliance conducted a study of some 30 mid-sized U.S. hospitals late last year and found that 52 percent of them were infected with malicious software, HITRUST Chief Executive Daniel Nutkis told Reuters.

The most common type of malware was ransomware, Nutkis said, which was present in 35 percent of the hospitals included in the study of network traffic conducted by security software maker Trend Micro Inc.

Ransomware is malicious software that locks up data in computers and leaves messages demanding payment to recover the data. Last month, Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital in Los Angeles paid a ransom of $17,000 to regain access to its systems.

This week, an attack on MedStar Health forced the largest healthcare provider in Washington, D.C., to shut down much of its computer network. The Baltimore Sun reported a ransom of $18,500 was sought. MedStar declined to comment.

HITRUST said it expects such attacks to become more frequent because ransomware has turned into a profitable business for cyber criminals.

The results of the study, which HITRUST has yet to share with the public, demonstrate that hackers have moved away from focusing on stealing patient data, Nutkis said.

"If stuff isn't working, they move on. If stuff is working, they keep doing it," said Nutkis. "Organizations that are paying have considered their options, and unfortunately they don't have a lot of options."

Extortion has become more popular with cyber criminals because it is seen as a way to generate fast money, said Larry Whiteside, a healthcare expert with cyber security firm Optiv.

Stealing healthcare data is far more labour intensive, requiring attackers to keep their presence in a victim's network undetected for months as they steal data, then they need to find buyers, he added.

"With ransomware I'm going to get paid immediately," Whiteside said.

Frisco, Texas-based HITRUST's board includes executives from Anthem, Health Care Services, Humana, UnitedHealth and Walgreens.

(Reuters) - Addressing a growing "epidemic" of opioid overdoses and abuse of the prescribed painkillers in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday released voluntary guidelines that instruct primary care doctors to sharply deter use of the medicines for chronic pain.

"Overprescribing opioids, largely for chronic pain, is a key driver of America's drug-overdose epidemic," said CDC Director Tom Frieden. Sales of the prescription therapies have quadrupled since 1999, causing 165,000 fatal overdoses over the same period and now growing at more than 40 per day, according to the agency.

Primary care doctors who treat adults for chronic pain in outpatient settings account for nearly half of all opioid prescriptions, the CDC said. It defined chronic pain as lasting longer than three months, or past the typical time it takes for normal tissue healing.

The new guidelines recommend non-opioids, including acetaminophen and ibuprofen, as preferred therapy for chronic pain unless patients have active cancer or are receiving palliative or end-of-life care.

When opioids are used, the lowest possible dose should be prescribed to reduce risks of opioid abuse and overdose and patients should then be closely monitored, according to the CDC guidelines. The drugs should also be combined with non-drug approaches to controlling pain, like physical therapy and exercise, the agency said.

Moreover, when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, doctors should prescribe immediate-release formulations instead of long-acting versions, the guidelines say. They recommend doctors avoid prescribing opioids with sedatives called benzodiazepines.

When prescribed for acute, or short-term pain, doctors should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate release opioids.

"Three days or less will often be sufficient; more than seven days will rarely be needed," the guidelines say.

Some studies suggest only 5 percent of patients prescribed opioids receive them for chronic pain, but they account for 70 percent of overall opioid prescriptions and the majority of overdoses.

For the vast majority of patients taking opioids for chronic pain, risks from the drugs will outweigh benefits, Frieden said. "The prescription overdose epidemic is doctor-driven," Frieden said, adding it can be reversed if doctors rein in their prescriptions of the painkillers.

The American College of Physicians on Tuesday said the new guidelines provide important guidance "at a time when many communities are being devastated by the adverse impact of opioid misuse."

The most widely used opioids include hydrocodone, which is the main active ingredient of Vicodin, and oxycodone, an active ingredient of OxyContin and Percocet. They are synthetic narcotics which work by binding to opioid receptors in the brain and are mostly available in pill form.

Nearly two million Americans aged 12 or older either abused or were dependent on prescription opioids in 2014, the CDC said.

Opioids also include heroin, an illegal injectable drug which has become a far cheaper alternative to oral opioids on the streets of many U.S. communities, causing many overdoses.

Other U.S. health officials on Tuesday said first responders should have wider access to naloxone, a drug that can reverse opioid overdoses.

SHM offers a safe opioid prescribing implementation guideline. The Implementation Toolkit, Reducing Adverse Drug Events related to Opioids, or RADEO, provides step-by step instructions for hospitals to implement a successful QI program to make opioid prescribing safer, with fewer adverse events, and much less likely to result in dangerous sedation, respiratory depression and death. Its scope is for hospitalized patients.

(Reuters) - Addressing a growing "epidemic" of opioid overdoses and abuse of the prescribed painkillers in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday released voluntary guidelines that instruct primary care doctors to sharply deter use of the medicines for chronic pain.

"Overprescribing opioids, largely for chronic pain, is a key driver of America's drug-overdose epidemic," said CDC Director Tom Frieden. Sales of the prescription therapies have quadrupled since 1999, causing 165,000 fatal overdoses over the same period and now growing at more than 40 per day, according to the agency.

Primary care doctors who treat adults for chronic pain in outpatient settings account for nearly half of all opioid prescriptions, the CDC said. It defined chronic pain as lasting longer than three months, or past the typical time it takes for normal tissue healing.

The new guidelines recommend non-opioids, including acetaminophen and ibuprofen, as preferred therapy for chronic pain unless patients have active cancer or are receiving palliative or end-of-life care.

When opioids are used, the lowest possible dose should be prescribed to reduce risks of opioid abuse and overdose and patients should then be closely monitored, according to the CDC guidelines. The drugs should also be combined with non-drug approaches to controlling pain, like physical therapy and exercise, the agency said.

Moreover, when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, doctors should prescribe immediate-release formulations instead of long-acting versions, the guidelines say. They recommend doctors avoid prescribing opioids with sedatives called benzodiazepines.

When prescribed for acute, or short-term pain, doctors should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate release opioids.

"Three days or less will often be sufficient; more than seven days will rarely be needed," the guidelines say.

Some studies suggest only 5 percent of patients prescribed opioids receive them for chronic pain, but they account for 70 percent of overall opioid prescriptions and the majority of overdoses.

For the vast majority of patients taking opioids for chronic pain, risks from the drugs will outweigh benefits, Frieden said. "The prescription overdose epidemic is doctor-driven," Frieden said, adding it can be reversed if doctors rein in their prescriptions of the painkillers.

The American College of Physicians on Tuesday said the new guidelines provide important guidance "at a time when many communities are being devastated by the adverse impact of opioid misuse."

The most widely used opioids include hydrocodone, which is the main active ingredient of Vicodin, and oxycodone, an active ingredient of OxyContin and Percocet. They are synthetic narcotics which work by binding to opioid receptors in the brain and are mostly available in pill form.

Nearly two million Americans aged 12 or older either abused or were dependent on prescription opioids in 2014, the CDC said.

Opioids also include heroin, an illegal injectable drug which has become a far cheaper alternative to oral opioids on the streets of many U.S. communities, causing many overdoses.

Other U.S. health officials on Tuesday said first responders should have wider access to naloxone, a drug that can reverse opioid overdoses.

SHM offers a safe opioid prescribing implementation guideline. The Implementation Toolkit, Reducing Adverse Drug Events related to Opioids, or RADEO, provides step-by step instructions for hospitals to implement a successful QI program to make opioid prescribing safer, with fewer adverse events, and much less likely to result in dangerous sedation, respiratory depression and death. Its scope is for hospitalized patients.

(Reuters) - Addressing a growing "epidemic" of opioid overdoses and abuse of the prescribed painkillers in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday released voluntary guidelines that instruct primary care doctors to sharply deter use of the medicines for chronic pain.

"Overprescribing opioids, largely for chronic pain, is a key driver of America's drug-overdose epidemic," said CDC Director Tom Frieden. Sales of the prescription therapies have quadrupled since 1999, causing 165,000 fatal overdoses over the same period and now growing at more than 40 per day, according to the agency.

Primary care doctors who treat adults for chronic pain in outpatient settings account for nearly half of all opioid prescriptions, the CDC said. It defined chronic pain as lasting longer than three months, or past the typical time it takes for normal tissue healing.

The new guidelines recommend non-opioids, including acetaminophen and ibuprofen, as preferred therapy for chronic pain unless patients have active cancer or are receiving palliative or end-of-life care.

When opioids are used, the lowest possible dose should be prescribed to reduce risks of opioid abuse and overdose and patients should then be closely monitored, according to the CDC guidelines. The drugs should also be combined with non-drug approaches to controlling pain, like physical therapy and exercise, the agency said.

Moreover, when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, doctors should prescribe immediate-release formulations instead of long-acting versions, the guidelines say. They recommend doctors avoid prescribing opioids with sedatives called benzodiazepines.

When prescribed for acute, or short-term pain, doctors should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate release opioids.

"Three days or less will often be sufficient; more than seven days will rarely be needed," the guidelines say.

Some studies suggest only 5 percent of patients prescribed opioids receive them for chronic pain, but they account for 70 percent of overall opioid prescriptions and the majority of overdoses.

For the vast majority of patients taking opioids for chronic pain, risks from the drugs will outweigh benefits, Frieden said. "The prescription overdose epidemic is doctor-driven," Frieden said, adding it can be reversed if doctors rein in their prescriptions of the painkillers.

The American College of Physicians on Tuesday said the new guidelines provide important guidance "at a time when many communities are being devastated by the adverse impact of opioid misuse."

The most widely used opioids include hydrocodone, which is the main active ingredient of Vicodin, and oxycodone, an active ingredient of OxyContin and Percocet. They are synthetic narcotics which work by binding to opioid receptors in the brain and are mostly available in pill form.

Nearly two million Americans aged 12 or older either abused or were dependent on prescription opioids in 2014, the CDC said.

Opioids also include heroin, an illegal injectable drug which has become a far cheaper alternative to oral opioids on the streets of many U.S. communities, causing many overdoses.

Other U.S. health officials on Tuesday said first responders should have wider access to naloxone, a drug that can reverse opioid overdoses.

SHM offers a safe opioid prescribing implementation guideline. The Implementation Toolkit, Reducing Adverse Drug Events related to Opioids, or RADEO, provides step-by step instructions for hospitals to implement a successful QI program to make opioid prescribing safer, with fewer adverse events, and much less likely to result in dangerous sedation, respiratory depression and death. Its scope is for hospitalized patients.

(Reuters) - U.S. government scientists have raised questions about the potential risks to patients of heart attacks and blood clots from Abbott Laboratories' novel coronary stent that dissolves after it is implanted.

Abbott is seeking U.S. approval to sell the stent, called Absorb, as an alternative to metal stents currently used in percutaneous coronary intervention. Unlike traditional stents that remain in place after implantation, Absorb is designed to disappear within three years of the procedure.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff, in documents released before an advisory panel meets on Tuesday to consider whether to recommend approval of the device, said they would ask the outside experts about data showing more heart attack and stent-related blood clots compared with Abbott's drug-coated metal Xience stent.

FDA said it also will ask the panel to address risks associated with the device when used in smaller arteries.

A large clinical trial released in October concluded that the Absorb stent, which is made of a plastic similar to dissolving sutures, was comparable to Xience in overall safety and effectiveness. Although Xience appeared to be numerically better than Absorb at one year on a variety of secondary measures, the differences were not considered statistically significant.

"These results are from physicians using a new therapy for the first time. Consequently, we expect them to improve with time and experience," said Abbott spokesman Jonathon Hamilton.

In the Absorb III clinical study, patients with small vessels comprised less than 20 percent of the total and experienced relatively low rates of adverse events even though many had known risk factors, including diabetes, Hamilton said.

More than 125,000 patients already have been treated with Absorb in more than 100 countries where it is commercially available.

If approved in the United States, Absorb would compete with Xience, the market-leading stent, and with Medtronic Plc's Resolute stent and Boston Scientific's Synergy and Promus stents. Synergy's polymer coating used to deliver a drug disappears over time, leaving a bare metal stent in place.

Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen said he expects Absorb to get a positive recommendation from the advisory panel, followed by FDA approval later this year.

"In the U.S., we estimate Absorb will capture about 5 percent of the total drug-eluting stent market, although our estimate may prove conservative if the post-approval data and experience with Absorb improves," Biegelsen wrote in a note to clients.

(Reuters) - U.S. government scientists have raised questions about the potential risks to patients of heart attacks and blood clots from Abbott Laboratories' novel coronary stent that dissolves after it is implanted.

Abbott is seeking U.S. approval to sell the stent, called Absorb, as an alternative to metal stents currently used in percutaneous coronary intervention. Unlike traditional stents that remain in place after implantation, Absorb is designed to disappear within three years of the procedure.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff, in documents released before an advisory panel meets on Tuesday to consider whether to recommend approval of the device, said they would ask the outside experts about data showing more heart attack and stent-related blood clots compared with Abbott's drug-coated metal Xience stent.

FDA said it also will ask the panel to address risks associated with the device when used in smaller arteries.

A large clinical trial released in October concluded that the Absorb stent, which is made of a plastic similar to dissolving sutures, was comparable to Xience in overall safety and effectiveness. Although Xience appeared to be numerically better than Absorb at one year on a variety of secondary measures, the differences were not considered statistically significant.

"These results are from physicians using a new therapy for the first time. Consequently, we expect them to improve with time and experience," said Abbott spokesman Jonathon Hamilton.

In the Absorb III clinical study, patients with small vessels comprised less than 20 percent of the total and experienced relatively low rates of adverse events even though many had known risk factors, including diabetes, Hamilton said.

More than 125,000 patients already have been treated with Absorb in more than 100 countries where it is commercially available.

If approved in the United States, Absorb would compete with Xience, the market-leading stent, and with Medtronic Plc's Resolute stent and Boston Scientific's Synergy and Promus stents. Synergy's polymer coating used to deliver a drug disappears over time, leaving a bare metal stent in place.

Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen said he expects Absorb to get a positive recommendation from the advisory panel, followed by FDA approval later this year.

"In the U.S., we estimate Absorb will capture about 5 percent of the total drug-eluting stent market, although our estimate may prove conservative if the post-approval data and experience with Absorb improves," Biegelsen wrote in a note to clients.

(Reuters) - U.S. government scientists have raised questions about the potential risks to patients of heart attacks and blood clots from Abbott Laboratories' novel coronary stent that dissolves after it is implanted.

Abbott is seeking U.S. approval to sell the stent, called Absorb, as an alternative to metal stents currently used in percutaneous coronary intervention. Unlike traditional stents that remain in place after implantation, Absorb is designed to disappear within three years of the procedure.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff, in documents released before an advisory panel meets on Tuesday to consider whether to recommend approval of the device, said they would ask the outside experts about data showing more heart attack and stent-related blood clots compared with Abbott's drug-coated metal Xience stent.

FDA said it also will ask the panel to address risks associated with the device when used in smaller arteries.

A large clinical trial released in October concluded that the Absorb stent, which is made of a plastic similar to dissolving sutures, was comparable to Xience in overall safety and effectiveness. Although Xience appeared to be numerically better than Absorb at one year on a variety of secondary measures, the differences were not considered statistically significant.

"These results are from physicians using a new therapy for the first time. Consequently, we expect them to improve with time and experience," said Abbott spokesman Jonathon Hamilton.

In the Absorb III clinical study, patients with small vessels comprised less than 20 percent of the total and experienced relatively low rates of adverse events even though many had known risk factors, including diabetes, Hamilton said.

More than 125,000 patients already have been treated with Absorb in more than 100 countries where it is commercially available.

If approved in the United States, Absorb would compete with Xience, the market-leading stent, and with Medtronic Plc's Resolute stent and Boston Scientific's Synergy and Promus stents. Synergy's polymer coating used to deliver a drug disappears over time, leaving a bare metal stent in place.

Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen said he expects Absorb to get a positive recommendation from the advisory panel, followed by FDA approval later this year.

"In the U.S., we estimate Absorb will capture about 5 percent of the total drug-eluting stent market, although our estimate may prove conservative if the post-approval data and experience with Absorb improves," Biegelsen wrote in a note to clients.

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Did you get enough sleep last night? If not, you are not alone. More than one out of three American adults do not get enough sleep, according to a study released Thursday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"That's a big problem," says Dr. Nancy Collop, director of the Emory Sleep Center at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who is familiar with the study. "You don't function as well, your ability to pay attention is reduced, and it can have serious, long term side effects. It can change your metabolism for the worse."

At least seven hours of sleep is considered healthy for an adults aged 18 to 60, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The CDC analyzed data from a 2014 survey of 444,306 adults and found roughly 65% of respondents reported getting that amount of

sleep.

"Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need," said Dr. Wayne Giles, director of the CDC's Division of Population Health, in a statement.

Getting less than seven hours a night is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and frequent mental distress, the study shows. Published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the study is the first of its kind to look at all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The study found that among those most likely to get great sleep were married or have a job, with 67% and 65%, respectively saying they get enough. Only 56% of divorced adults said they get enough sleep, and just over half of jobless adults sleep seven hours a night regularly. Among the best sleepers were college graduates, with 72% reporting seven hours or more.

The study found geographical differences as well as ethnic disparities. Hawaiian residents get less sleep than those living in South Dakota, the study found. Non-Hispanic whites sleep better than non-Hispanic black residents, with 67% and 54%, respectively.

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Did you get enough sleep last night? If not, you are not alone. More than one out of three American adults do not get enough sleep, according to a study released Thursday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"That's a big problem," says Dr. Nancy Collop, director of the Emory Sleep Center at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who is familiar with the study. "You don't function as well, your ability to pay attention is reduced, and it can have serious, long term side effects. It can change your metabolism for the worse."

At least seven hours of sleep is considered healthy for an adults aged 18 to 60, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The CDC analyzed data from a 2014 survey of 444,306 adults and found roughly 65% of respondents reported getting that amount of

sleep.

"Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need," said Dr. Wayne Giles, director of the CDC's Division of Population Health, in a statement.

Getting less than seven hours a night is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and frequent mental distress, the study shows. Published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the study is the first of its kind to look at all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The study found that among those most likely to get great sleep were married or have a job, with 67% and 65%, respectively saying they get enough. Only 56% of divorced adults said they get enough sleep, and just over half of jobless adults sleep seven hours a night regularly. Among the best sleepers were college graduates, with 72% reporting seven hours or more.

The study found geographical differences as well as ethnic disparities. Hawaiian residents get less sleep than those living in South Dakota, the study found. Non-Hispanic whites sleep better than non-Hispanic black residents, with 67% and 54%, respectively.

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Did you get enough sleep last night? If not, you are not alone. More than one out of three American adults do not get enough sleep, according to a study released Thursday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"That's a big problem," says Dr. Nancy Collop, director of the Emory Sleep Center at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who is familiar with the study. "You don't function as well, your ability to pay attention is reduced, and it can have serious, long term side effects. It can change your metabolism for the worse."

At least seven hours of sleep is considered healthy for an adults aged 18 to 60, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The CDC analyzed data from a 2014 survey of 444,306 adults and found roughly 65% of respondents reported getting that amount of

sleep.

"Lifestyle changes such as going to bed at the same time each night; rising at the same time each morning; and turning off or removing televisions, computers, mobile devices from the bedroom, can help people get the healthy sleep they need," said Dr. Wayne Giles, director of the CDC's Division of Population Health, in a statement.

Getting less than seven hours a night is associated with an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and frequent mental distress, the study shows. Published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the study is the first of its kind to look at all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The study found that among those most likely to get great sleep were married or have a job, with 67% and 65%, respectively saying they get enough. Only 56% of divorced adults said they get enough sleep, and just over half of jobless adults sleep seven hours a night regularly. Among the best sleepers were college graduates, with 72% reporting seven hours or more.

The study found geographical differences as well as ethnic disparities. Hawaiian residents get less sleep than those living in South Dakota, the study found. Non-Hispanic whites sleep better than non-Hispanic black residents, with 67% and 54%, respectively.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Friday proposed raising payments by 1.35 percent on average next year to the health insurers who offer Medicare Advantage health benefits to elderly and disabled Americans.

Payments to insurers will vary under the 2017 Medicare Advantage proposal, based on the region the plans are sold and on the size of bonus payments insurers can receive based on quality ratings, the government said.

Shares of health insurers rose in after-hours trade. Analysts said the proposal looked positive for insurers at first glance, but cautioned that they needed to parse it fully.

"Looks like the best case scenario has played itself out,"said Ipsita Smolinski of Capitol Street, a Washington D.C. research firm, who had anticipated about 1 percent increase in payments.

Insurers and lawmakers have pressured the government not to cut payments, saying any decrease would hurt older Americans by forcing insurers to cut benefits.

Insurer lobbyist America's Health Insurance Plans President Marilyn Tavenner said it was important that the final policy ensure the long-term stability of Medicare Advantage. She said in a statement that the group was looking closely at the proposal.

About 17 million Americans have healthcare coverage through Medicare Advantage, offered by insurers including UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc, and Anthem Inc among others. Another more than 30 million people receive benefits through the government Medicare fee-for-service program.

Shares of Anthem Inc rose 1.4 percent in after-hours trading, while UnitedHealth Group gained 1.6 percent.

Some insurers may benefit more than others from the proposal to pay more to insurers who are managing plans for people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid for the poor, said Kim Monk, managing director of Capital Alpha Partners.

The 1.35 percent increase is based mostly on anticipated medical cost increases next year. The government expects a 3 percent payment growth rate, which is in line with estimates the government provided to insurers in December.

That 3 percent increase is then reduced to 1.35 percent due to lower payments to insurers for sicker-than-average customers and some medical coding changes, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Medicare agency said on Friday.

The 1.35 percent also takes into account an increase in how it pays insurers based on quality measures, called star ratings, it said.

The final rate for 2017 Medicare Advantage payments is based on this proposed figure and will be released in April.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Friday proposed raising payments by 1.35 percent on average next year to the health insurers who offer Medicare Advantage health benefits to elderly and disabled Americans.

Payments to insurers will vary under the 2017 Medicare Advantage proposal, based on the region the plans are sold and on the size of bonus payments insurers can receive based on quality ratings, the government said.

Shares of health insurers rose in after-hours trade. Analysts said the proposal looked positive for insurers at first glance, but cautioned that they needed to parse it fully.

"Looks like the best case scenario has played itself out,"said Ipsita Smolinski of Capitol Street, a Washington D.C. research firm, who had anticipated about 1 percent increase in payments.

Insurers and lawmakers have pressured the government not to cut payments, saying any decrease would hurt older Americans by forcing insurers to cut benefits.

Insurer lobbyist America's Health Insurance Plans President Marilyn Tavenner said it was important that the final policy ensure the long-term stability of Medicare Advantage. She said in a statement that the group was looking closely at the proposal.

About 17 million Americans have healthcare coverage through Medicare Advantage, offered by insurers including UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc, and Anthem Inc among others. Another more than 30 million people receive benefits through the government Medicare fee-for-service program.

Shares of Anthem Inc rose 1.4 percent in after-hours trading, while UnitedHealth Group gained 1.6 percent.

Some insurers may benefit more than others from the proposal to pay more to insurers who are managing plans for people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid for the poor, said Kim Monk, managing director of Capital Alpha Partners.

The 1.35 percent increase is based mostly on anticipated medical cost increases next year. The government expects a 3 percent payment growth rate, which is in line with estimates the government provided to insurers in December.

That 3 percent increase is then reduced to 1.35 percent due to lower payments to insurers for sicker-than-average customers and some medical coding changes, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Medicare agency said on Friday.

The 1.35 percent also takes into account an increase in how it pays insurers based on quality measures, called star ratings, it said.

The final rate for 2017 Medicare Advantage payments is based on this proposed figure and will be released in April.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Friday proposed raising payments by 1.35 percent on average next year to the health insurers who offer Medicare Advantage health benefits to elderly and disabled Americans.

Payments to insurers will vary under the 2017 Medicare Advantage proposal, based on the region the plans are sold and on the size of bonus payments insurers can receive based on quality ratings, the government said.

Shares of health insurers rose in after-hours trade. Analysts said the proposal looked positive for insurers at first glance, but cautioned that they needed to parse it fully.

"Looks like the best case scenario has played itself out,"said Ipsita Smolinski of Capitol Street, a Washington D.C. research firm, who had anticipated about 1 percent increase in payments.

Insurers and lawmakers have pressured the government not to cut payments, saying any decrease would hurt older Americans by forcing insurers to cut benefits.

Insurer lobbyist America's Health Insurance Plans President Marilyn Tavenner said it was important that the final policy ensure the long-term stability of Medicare Advantage. She said in a statement that the group was looking closely at the proposal.

About 17 million Americans have healthcare coverage through Medicare Advantage, offered by insurers including UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc, and Anthem Inc among others. Another more than 30 million people receive benefits through the government Medicare fee-for-service program.

Shares of Anthem Inc rose 1.4 percent in after-hours trading, while UnitedHealth Group gained 1.6 percent.

Some insurers may benefit more than others from the proposal to pay more to insurers who are managing plans for people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid for the poor, said Kim Monk, managing director of Capital Alpha Partners.

The 1.35 percent increase is based mostly on anticipated medical cost increases next year. The government expects a 3 percent payment growth rate, which is in line with estimates the government provided to insurers in December.

That 3 percent increase is then reduced to 1.35 percent due to lower payments to insurers for sicker-than-average customers and some medical coding changes, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Medicare agency said on Friday.

The 1.35 percent also takes into account an increase in how it pays insurers based on quality measures, called star ratings, it said.

The final rate for 2017 Medicare Advantage payments is based on this proposed figure and will be released in April.

An experimental antibody developed by Merck & Co Inc was shown in pivotal studies to reduce by about 10 percentage points the risk that infection with Clostridium difficile will recur.

In the United States, C. difficile infects nearly half a million people each year and contributes to around 29,000 deaths. The infection is treated with standard antibiotics, which also wipe out healthy bacteria that normally keep C. difficile under control.

Merck said two Phase 3 studies found 12 weeks of treatment with antibiotics and a one-time infusion of bezlotoxumab, designed to block the ability of a toxin to bind to cells, reduced to about 15% the risk that C. difficile would recur. The studies found that the infection recurred in about 25% of patients treated with antibiotics and a placebo.

"We have therapies to treat the initial episode, but this infection comes back frequently - there is a 25% risk of recurrence after the first time, and that rises to 40% or even 60% after the second infection," said Nick Kartsonis, associate vice president in clinical research, infectious diseases at Merck.

The studies showed no benefit from a second experimental antibody, actoxumab, either alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab. Merck said the actoxumab arm was stopped for efficacy and safety reasons after an interim analysis.

The studies were presented September 20 at the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) and International Congress of Chemotherapy and Infection (ICC) joint meeting in San Diego.

Bezlotoxumab is a selective, fully-human, monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize C. difficile toxin B.

The company said it plans to file before the end of the year for regulatory approval of bezlotoxumab, which it licensed from Massachusetts Biologic Laboratories and Medarex, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Side effects, including nausea, diarrhea and urinary tract infection, occurred at similar rates for patients in both the treatment and placebo arms of the trials.

The incidence of C. difficile infection has risen sharply over the last two decades and is now a leading cause of healthcare-acquired infections in community hospitals in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Other companies are working on vaccines against C. difficile. Doctors are also treating patients with "stool transplants," which involves inserting fecal material from a healthy person into the gut of someone with severe diarrhea in order to restore friendly bacteria.

An experimental antibody developed by Merck & Co Inc was shown in pivotal studies to reduce by about 10 percentage points the risk that infection with Clostridium difficile will recur.

In the United States, C. difficile infects nearly half a million people each year and contributes to around 29,000 deaths. The infection is treated with standard antibiotics, which also wipe out healthy bacteria that normally keep C. difficile under control.

Merck said two Phase 3 studies found 12 weeks of treatment with antibiotics and a one-time infusion of bezlotoxumab, designed to block the ability of a toxin to bind to cells, reduced to about 15% the risk that C. difficile would recur. The studies found that the infection recurred in about 25% of patients treated with antibiotics and a placebo.

"We have therapies to treat the initial episode, but this infection comes back frequently - there is a 25% risk of recurrence after the first time, and that rises to 40% or even 60% after the second infection," said Nick Kartsonis, associate vice president in clinical research, infectious diseases at Merck.

The studies showed no benefit from a second experimental antibody, actoxumab, either alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab. Merck said the actoxumab arm was stopped for efficacy and safety reasons after an interim analysis.

The studies were presented September 20 at the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) and International Congress of Chemotherapy and Infection (ICC) joint meeting in San Diego.

Bezlotoxumab is a selective, fully-human, monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize C. difficile toxin B.

The company said it plans to file before the end of the year for regulatory approval of bezlotoxumab, which it licensed from Massachusetts Biologic Laboratories and Medarex, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Side effects, including nausea, diarrhea and urinary tract infection, occurred at similar rates for patients in both the treatment and placebo arms of the trials.

The incidence of C. difficile infection has risen sharply over the last two decades and is now a leading cause of healthcare-acquired infections in community hospitals in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Other companies are working on vaccines against C. difficile. Doctors are also treating patients with "stool transplants," which involves inserting fecal material from a healthy person into the gut of someone with severe diarrhea in order to restore friendly bacteria.

An experimental antibody developed by Merck & Co Inc was shown in pivotal studies to reduce by about 10 percentage points the risk that infection with Clostridium difficile will recur.

In the United States, C. difficile infects nearly half a million people each year and contributes to around 29,000 deaths. The infection is treated with standard antibiotics, which also wipe out healthy bacteria that normally keep C. difficile under control.

Merck said two Phase 3 studies found 12 weeks of treatment with antibiotics and a one-time infusion of bezlotoxumab, designed to block the ability of a toxin to bind to cells, reduced to about 15% the risk that C. difficile would recur. The studies found that the infection recurred in about 25% of patients treated with antibiotics and a placebo.

"We have therapies to treat the initial episode, but this infection comes back frequently - there is a 25% risk of recurrence after the first time, and that rises to 40% or even 60% after the second infection," said Nick Kartsonis, associate vice president in clinical research, infectious diseases at Merck.

The studies showed no benefit from a second experimental antibody, actoxumab, either alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab. Merck said the actoxumab arm was stopped for efficacy and safety reasons after an interim analysis.

The studies were presented September 20 at the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) and International Congress of Chemotherapy and Infection (ICC) joint meeting in San Diego.

Bezlotoxumab is a selective, fully-human, monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize C. difficile toxin B.

The company said it plans to file before the end of the year for regulatory approval of bezlotoxumab, which it licensed from Massachusetts Biologic Laboratories and Medarex, now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Side effects, including nausea, diarrhea and urinary tract infection, occurred at similar rates for patients in both the treatment and placebo arms of the trials.

The incidence of C. difficile infection has risen sharply over the last two decades and is now a leading cause of healthcare-acquired infections in community hospitals in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Other companies are working on vaccines against C. difficile. Doctors are also treating patients with "stool transplants," which involves inserting fecal material from a healthy person into the gut of someone with severe diarrhea in order to restore friendly bacteria.