by LAS
News stories galore are popping up all over the internet and inside consumer watchdog newsletters. Over the summer, we have been treated to the ultimate whistleblower, Wendell Potter, the former insurance exec who now reveals all the dirty secrets of the industry's program to wrangle the most favorable legislation from our Congress.
This week a slew of similar stories have deflated industry puffery. The New York Times has admitted that it gave the public option short shrift in a one-sided editorial. The editorial went to great lengths to list every objection to the public option without listing even one benefit espoused by its proponents. The media watchdog FAIR received about 1,000 complaints about the editorial. You can read the admittedly short admission on the pages of FAIR dot org here: www.fair.org/index.php?page=3926
Slate carried an article earlier this week bu Robert Reich, who exulted over the way that insurers' have boxed themselves into a corner while trying to fight the prospect of reforms and/or the public option. The intriguing title is “The Audacity of Greed: How Private Health Insurers Just Blew Their Cover.” Reich wrote: “The only reason these costs can be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums is because there's not enough competition among private insurers to force them to absorb the costs by becoming more efficient. Get it? Health insurers have just made the best argument yet about why a public insurance option is necessary.” You can read that article now on his blog, at: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/10/audacity-of-greed-how-private-health.html
Then an AP story today, Thu, carried the headline “FACT CHECK: Health insurers cherry-pick facts.” The headline is not at all surprising; most of us are aware that every industry will put forth its views with the most selective data supporting its position. However, it is unusual that the major media will announce such spin-doctoring while the battle rages on. This article points out that a recent industry ad misleads seniors into thinking that cuts are being made to basic Medicare. It is not; what is being cut is Medicare Advantage, the low-cost alternative that is most similar to an HMO. Costs to administer this program have risen much faster than first projected. Yahoo News has the full article which you can read here: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_go_co/us_health_insurers_fact_check;_ylt=Aol4ud6iH0FiULm5ZbK19E8iANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTMwaGJzOTAwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDE1L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9pbnN1cmVyc19mYWN0X2NoZWNrBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2ZhY3RjaGVja2hlYQ--
In a related matter, PR Watch has written a good article titled: “Put out the FIRE on Capitol Hill with a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.” Do we need yet another government agency? Yes, if we are to curb the abuses committed by the current generation of banks and other financial institutions. Will we get an agency with teeth, if we set up such a watchdog? It is in doubt whether such an agency will see the light of day. Take a look at the political contributions dispensed to certain key members of Congress, to make them more receptive to the industry's views on reforms and oversight.
To quote: “Take Congresswoman Melissa Bean (D-IL), for instance, she is the top recipient on the committee of FIRE campaign finance dollars in 2009. She is also one of the biggest threats to meaningful reform. Evidently, Bean's take away from the financial crisis – which threw 7 million Americans out of work and cost taxpayers $3 trillion – is that consumers need less protection not more. According to watchdogs at Public Citizen, Bean is planning to introduce an amendment to the CFPA bill tomorrow which would take away the right of states to protect consumers more aggressively than the feds.”
This is serious business, folks. You need to voice your support of a financial watchdog agency WITH TEETH so that more Americans do not suffer for the crimes of our financial system.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Q: Are Insurers Practicing Medicine Without A License?
by L.A.S.
One of the odder results of our reliance on private health insurers is that insurers are in fact making medical decisions. Those decisions are removed from the doctor-patient relationship. Yet while the insurers claim that they are making decisions on PAYMENT, and not on approving or denying the actual medical treatment, the fact is that in the end, insurers' decisions determine whether patients live or die.
This raises the questions then, whether insurers are practicing medicine without a license!
Who gave them this authority?
If the insurance industry were handed the job now of covering medical claims (as they way were back in 1919), would they be able to get away with it?
I wish someone would file a lawsuit and find out if we consumers can set things to rights.
One of the odder results of our reliance on private health insurers is that insurers are in fact making medical decisions. Those decisions are removed from the doctor-patient relationship. Yet while the insurers claim that they are making decisions on PAYMENT, and not on approving or denying the actual medical treatment, the fact is that in the end, insurers' decisions determine whether patients live or die.
This raises the questions then, whether insurers are practicing medicine without a license!
Who gave them this authority?
If the insurance industry were handed the job now of covering medical claims (as they way were back in 1919), would they be able to get away with it?
I wish someone would file a lawsuit and find out if we consumers can set things to rights.
Insurers attacking healthcare reform bill with heavy lobbying
by L.A.S.
This is no surprise, but insurers are fighting back hard against prospects of real healthcare reform that may or may not include a public option.
Their latest gambit is a claim that this reform movement would add hundreds of dollars to the cost of insurance coverage, contrary to the claim by the reformers that pitching a bigger tent to cover more people (including young, healthy people who currently do not feel they need health insurance) will reduce the cost of covering everyone else.
To quote the article: “The (insurers) study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.
Baucus spokesman Mulhauser said the study is "seriously flawed" because it doesn't take into account provisions in the legislation that would lower the cost of coverage, such as tax credits to help people buy private insurance, protections for current policies and administrative savings from a revamped marketplace.
White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass concurred. "This is an insurance industry analysis that is designed to reach a conclusion which benefits the industry, and does not represent what the bill does," she said.” [end of quote]
You can read the whole article (per Newsvine feed) at www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/11/3372624-insurers-mount-attack-against-health-reform
This is no surprise, but insurers are fighting back hard against prospects of real healthcare reform that may or may not include a public option.
Their latest gambit is a claim that this reform movement would add hundreds of dollars to the cost of insurance coverage, contrary to the claim by the reformers that pitching a bigger tent to cover more people (including young, healthy people who currently do not feel they need health insurance) will reduce the cost of covering everyone else.
To quote the article: “The (insurers) study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.
Baucus spokesman Mulhauser said the study is "seriously flawed" because it doesn't take into account provisions in the legislation that would lower the cost of coverage, such as tax credits to help people buy private insurance, protections for current policies and administrative savings from a revamped marketplace.
White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass concurred. "This is an insurance industry analysis that is designed to reach a conclusion which benefits the industry, and does not represent what the bill does," she said.” [end of quote]
You can read the whole article (per Newsvine feed) at www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/11/3372624-insurers-mount-attack-against-health-reform
Sunday, September 27, 2009
A Minnesotan Reports on the Canadian National Health Experience
by L.A.S.
When Minnesotan Bob McIntosh moved to Victoria, British Columbia, two years ago, he expected long waits for medical attention. But to his surprise, he was shown to a doctor's office after only 20 minutes in the waiting room of a local walk-in clinic.
Service was not only fast but friendly. The building is less imposing than most facilities in the U.S., and clinic rooms might be described as spartan. Yet patients can depend on everything that counts where medical services are concerned, and so it merits serious consideration as a basis for an American plan.
Contrary to what most sources would have you believe, the coverage is not exactly free and excludes some allied health services.
Mr. McIntosh reports that Canadians there pay a monthly premium of just $100. That premium is waived for those who cannot afford it. The national health plan, called Medicare, does include clinic visits, annual checkups, and most lab work. Not covered are a PSA test ($30), eyeglasses, dental care, acupuncture, physiotherapy, massage, chiropractic, non-surgical podiatry, and the like.
The Medicare program is administered by the provinces. That means if a resident of British Columbia travels to another province or country, he needs supplemental insurance. McIntosh found such a plan for another $88 a month, but many people get such coverage provided by their employers.
Why can't the powers-that-be in this country accept the irresistible logic of a national healthcare plan? Perhaps they like seeing huge, luxurious hospital wings with their names on a plaque up front. And they like even better the large inflow of money each month from insurance policyholders and annual bonuses for denying medical care to those who need it.
When Minnesotan Bob McIntosh moved to Victoria, British Columbia, two years ago, he expected long waits for medical attention. But to his surprise, he was shown to a doctor's office after only 20 minutes in the waiting room of a local walk-in clinic.
Service was not only fast but friendly. The building is less imposing than most facilities in the U.S., and clinic rooms might be described as spartan. Yet patients can depend on everything that counts where medical services are concerned, and so it merits serious consideration as a basis for an American plan.
Contrary to what most sources would have you believe, the coverage is not exactly free and excludes some allied health services.
Mr. McIntosh reports that Canadians there pay a monthly premium of just $100. That premium is waived for those who cannot afford it. The national health plan, called Medicare, does include clinic visits, annual checkups, and most lab work. Not covered are a PSA test ($30), eyeglasses, dental care, acupuncture, physiotherapy, massage, chiropractic, non-surgical podiatry, and the like.
The Medicare program is administered by the provinces. That means if a resident of British Columbia travels to another province or country, he needs supplemental insurance. McIntosh found such a plan for another $88 a month, but many people get such coverage provided by their employers.
Why can't the powers-that-be in this country accept the irresistible logic of a national healthcare plan? Perhaps they like seeing huge, luxurious hospital wings with their names on a plaque up front. And they like even better the large inflow of money each month from insurance policyholders and annual bonuses for denying medical care to those who need it.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wouldn't You Love to Have 100 Percent Income Replacement thru Your Disability Insurance?
by LAS
Wouldn't we all love to be assured of full income replacement if we were disabled, either short term or long term? Well, unfortunately Americans cannot get that kind of coverage, at least not if they live in the United States.
I viewed the film Sicko again and there was so much covered in there, that it was difficult to sort out all the issues. But one of the issues apart from those related to health insurance was the matter of disability insurance.
Here in the United States, one cannot get more than about 60 or 65 percent income replacement through a disability policy, whether from a private policy or through the federal government's SSI program. It is felt that people should not profit by getting injured or disabled. Well, they should not be forced to choose between rent and food, or rent and medications -- and so many of those on disability rely on several medications just to get through the day.
Tony Benn was quoted in Sicko as saying that choice depends on freedom to choose, and if you are shackled with debt, then one does not have the freedom to choose. I might add that if you are shackled with healthcare bills beyond your ability to pay, then you do not have choice or the freedom to choose, either.
But in France, the law requires that disabled people receive full pay while on disability. The government pays 65 percent, and your employer pays 35 percent. Sicko related the story of a Frenchman who was too exhausted after a course of chemo to go back to work right away, so his doctor gave him a note for a three-month leave. So the guy goes on vacation, soaks up some sun and recoups his old energy, and voila, he's a new man again.
So if you should be so lucky as to work for the French office of an American corporation, you could reap the best of both worlds. American pay with French social security -- real social security, not just a retirement check that won't cover rent, but retirement, healthcare, disability, full maternity coverage, and more.
I have read that recent years have found the French hard-pressed to pay for rising expenses even in a system that pays its doctors well but not extravagantly. Perhaps they will have to cut the less necessary fringe items like paying for vacations, or for college beyond the first two years, or or home services for new mothers.
But I sure hope that the French maintain their militant insistence that even foreign corporations have to obey French labor laws. Someone has to keep the corporations in line. And if the French will do the job, then more power to them.
Wouldn't we all love to be assured of full income replacement if we were disabled, either short term or long term? Well, unfortunately Americans cannot get that kind of coverage, at least not if they live in the United States.
I viewed the film Sicko again and there was so much covered in there, that it was difficult to sort out all the issues. But one of the issues apart from those related to health insurance was the matter of disability insurance.
Here in the United States, one cannot get more than about 60 or 65 percent income replacement through a disability policy, whether from a private policy or through the federal government's SSI program. It is felt that people should not profit by getting injured or disabled. Well, they should not be forced to choose between rent and food, or rent and medications -- and so many of those on disability rely on several medications just to get through the day.
Tony Benn was quoted in Sicko as saying that choice depends on freedom to choose, and if you are shackled with debt, then one does not have the freedom to choose. I might add that if you are shackled with healthcare bills beyond your ability to pay, then you do not have choice or the freedom to choose, either.
But in France, the law requires that disabled people receive full pay while on disability. The government pays 65 percent, and your employer pays 35 percent. Sicko related the story of a Frenchman who was too exhausted after a course of chemo to go back to work right away, so his doctor gave him a note for a three-month leave. So the guy goes on vacation, soaks up some sun and recoups his old energy, and voila, he's a new man again.
So if you should be so lucky as to work for the French office of an American corporation, you could reap the best of both worlds. American pay with French social security -- real social security, not just a retirement check that won't cover rent, but retirement, healthcare, disability, full maternity coverage, and more.
I have read that recent years have found the French hard-pressed to pay for rising expenses even in a system that pays its doctors well but not extravagantly. Perhaps they will have to cut the less necessary fringe items like paying for vacations, or for college beyond the first two years, or or home services for new mothers.
But I sure hope that the French maintain their militant insistence that even foreign corporations have to obey French labor laws. Someone has to keep the corporations in line. And if the French will do the job, then more power to them.
Remember the Part in 'Sicko' When Sick People Had Policies Canceled Back to Starting Point?
by LAS
The Michael Moore film Sicko threw light on many kinds of problems that ordinary people have with their health insurers. One such problem is rescission, where a company decides that it issued a policy in error (often claiming the policyholder lied or omitted required information on the application), and cancels that policy all the way back to its starting date.
This sticks the hapless policyholder with all the bills that the insurer had paid while the policy was in force. Sicko related the story of one such victim of the rescission power, who had omitted a history of yeast infection and was stuck with a $7000 surgery bill for an unrelated illness. NAIC, the regulating body for the insurance industry, has decided to take steps to curb abuse of rescission and bolster consumer protection.
NAIC sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. In this letter, NAIC outlined its plan to analyze rescission-related consumer complaints, and develop procedures for external reviews of these rescissions. It stated that it is determined to prevent abuses of the rescission authority, which is used by insurers to cancel policies that it decides were issued in error.
It is nice to see that Moore's film has prodded NAIC to at least examine the practice of rescission and promise to improve consumer protection. We will see what comes of this, or whether the industry will pull the teeth out of any attempts to regulate itself.
The Michael Moore film Sicko threw light on many kinds of problems that ordinary people have with their health insurers. One such problem is rescission, where a company decides that it issued a policy in error (often claiming the policyholder lied or omitted required information on the application), and cancels that policy all the way back to its starting date.
This sticks the hapless policyholder with all the bills that the insurer had paid while the policy was in force. Sicko related the story of one such victim of the rescission power, who had omitted a history of yeast infection and was stuck with a $7000 surgery bill for an unrelated illness. NAIC, the regulating body for the insurance industry, has decided to take steps to curb abuse of rescission and bolster consumer protection.
NAIC sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. In this letter, NAIC outlined its plan to analyze rescission-related consumer complaints, and develop procedures for external reviews of these rescissions. It stated that it is determined to prevent abuses of the rescission authority, which is used by insurers to cancel policies that it decides were issued in error.
It is nice to see that Moore's film has prodded NAIC to at least examine the practice of rescission and promise to improve consumer protection. We will see what comes of this, or whether the industry will pull the teeth out of any attempts to regulate itself.
Manulife Shareholders Threaten Class-Action Lawsuit
by LAS
The shareholders of Manulife Financial have proposed a class-action lawsuit against the executives of the firm. They charge that the execs made “false and misleading statements” about the company's risk management ability. The shareholders equate this with violating federal securities laws.
The proposal was filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Manulife has responded by saying that its financial disclosure met all legal requirements and that these issues have nothing to do with policyholders or company products.
The Canadian regulators responded first, with the Ontario Securities Commissioner issuing a statement in June. In that response, Canada's preliminary conclusion was that the company did not meet its obligation to disclose regarding market risk in its variable annuity products and segregated funds.
Geez, why is it so clear to the Canadians that Manulife was playing fast and loose with the law? Will there be any justice for the American shareholders? And why is it so difficult for Manulife to do right in the first place?
The shareholders of Manulife Financial have proposed a class-action lawsuit against the executives of the firm. They charge that the execs made “false and misleading statements” about the company's risk management ability. The shareholders equate this with violating federal securities laws.
The proposal was filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Manulife has responded by saying that its financial disclosure met all legal requirements and that these issues have nothing to do with policyholders or company products.
The Canadian regulators responded first, with the Ontario Securities Commissioner issuing a statement in June. In that response, Canada's preliminary conclusion was that the company did not meet its obligation to disclose regarding market risk in its variable annuity products and segregated funds.
Geez, why is it so clear to the Canadians that Manulife was playing fast and loose with the law? Will there be any justice for the American shareholders? And why is it so difficult for Manulife to do right in the first place?
Insurance Companies See Losses, Downgraded Fitch Ratings
by LAS
The year 2009 has seen insurance companies taking hits both in their bottom lines and in their ability to sell bonds. Fitch has downgraded all health insurers that it covers to a negative outlook. Part of the reason for the downgrades is the uncertainty of what health insurance reform will entail.
Fitch has been downgrading ratings on insurers during the first half of 2009, almost across the board. A total of 42 companies had their ratings downgraded. By contrast, only three insurers suffered downgrades in 2007, and 13 in 2008. Fitch does not expect to see more upgrades than downgrades till 2010.
MetLife suffered investment losses of $2.6 billion in just the second quarter of 2009. This loss was mainly due to derivatives, a sector that is still exacting its penalties for the industry's lack of judgment. MetLife had been using derivatives as a hedge against risks like inflation and currency fluctuations. Company net income fell from $4.3 billion in the second quarter of 2008 to $3.9 billion this year.
Oddly enough, MetLife passed the government's stress test earlier this year. It also had the lowest total potential losses compared to 18 competitors.
The Hartford Financial Services also posted a second quarter loss and missed analyst expectations. While expected to finish that quarter with a profit, instead it lost $15 million. Earnings were down 11 percent from a year ago. Earnings per share for common shareholders declined from $2.22 to $1.90 per share.
One of the few insurers to see a healthy gain in business was AAA. A.M. Best attributed AAA's superior showing to its wide marketing and distribution relationships with partner clubs.
The year 2009 has seen insurance companies taking hits both in their bottom lines and in their ability to sell bonds. Fitch has downgraded all health insurers that it covers to a negative outlook. Part of the reason for the downgrades is the uncertainty of what health insurance reform will entail.
Fitch has been downgrading ratings on insurers during the first half of 2009, almost across the board. A total of 42 companies had their ratings downgraded. By contrast, only three insurers suffered downgrades in 2007, and 13 in 2008. Fitch does not expect to see more upgrades than downgrades till 2010.
MetLife suffered investment losses of $2.6 billion in just the second quarter of 2009. This loss was mainly due to derivatives, a sector that is still exacting its penalties for the industry's lack of judgment. MetLife had been using derivatives as a hedge against risks like inflation and currency fluctuations. Company net income fell from $4.3 billion in the second quarter of 2008 to $3.9 billion this year.
Oddly enough, MetLife passed the government's stress test earlier this year. It also had the lowest total potential losses compared to 18 competitors.
The Hartford Financial Services also posted a second quarter loss and missed analyst expectations. While expected to finish that quarter with a profit, instead it lost $15 million. Earnings were down 11 percent from a year ago. Earnings per share for common shareholders declined from $2.22 to $1.90 per share.
One of the few insurers to see a healthy gain in business was AAA. A.M. Best attributed AAA's superior showing to its wide marketing and distribution relationships with partner clubs.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
2009 List of Providers of Whole Life Insurance
by L.A.S.
Whole Life insurance has seen a huge resurgence of interest in recent years. Many whole life policies are substituting for long-term care insurance for those who cannot qualify for that specific insurance policy; the fact that most whole life insurance policies can include a rider allowing for “accelerated benefits” in case of terminal illness has been a real boon for both insurers and for consumers. Also the tax benefits as opposed to an annuity or other investment is a consideration.
Many of the products listed below are only for workplace insurance offerings, but many also offer individual policies. This list may not be completely comprehensive. Please also consult the 2008 list for other companies, and your state insurance commissioners office. For the latter you can begin the search by going to NAIC online (National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners) and then click on your state; this will take you to your state's insurance commission and you will find a comprehensive listing of insurers who are licensed to operate in your state.
American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus (Aflac): aflac.com; 800-992-3522; all states; issue ages 18-65.
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Co.: americo.com; 800-231-0801 x 8410; all states EXCEPT AL ME MS NY VT WA, “Ultra Protector” series issue ages 50-85.
Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Co.: cbl-life.com; 800-367-7814; all states EXCEPT MN MT NJ NY ND VT WA WV; “Preferred Golden Protector” issue ages 15-85.
EMC National Life: emcnationallife.com; 800-232-5818; all states EXCEPT DE MD MA NJ NY; Workplace Increasing Whole Life issue ages 18-70. EMC National Life Co., at emcnl.com, also offers “Worksite Increasing Whole Life” for issue ages 0-70.
Equitable Life & Casualty: equilife.com; 800-352-5170; all states EXCEPT AR CA DC FL GA HI MD MA MN NJ NY NC PA WA WV WI; issue ages for Equilife Legacy 3 is 18-84. Equilife Legacy I is offered in all states EXCEPT AL CA DC HI MD MA MN NJ NY WA WI, same issue ages. Equilife Legacy II is offered in all states EXCEPT AL CA DC FL GA HI MD MA MN NJ NY NC PA WA WV WI, same issue ages.
Illinois Mutual: illinoismutual.com; 800-437-7355 x782; “Interest Sensitive Whole Life Insurance” is offered in all states EXCEPT AK HI MT NJ NY PA; issue ages for employees is 15-79.
M & O Marketing: mandomarketing.com; 800-228-5964; all states; issue ages 0-85.
Medico Insurance Co.: gomedico.com; 800-228-6080; offered in AR CO ID IA KY MO NE NV NM OK OR SC TN UT WV WY; issue ages 50-85 for “Final Expense Whole Life A04 or A05”.
National Life Insurance Co.: nationallife.com; 802-229-3333; NL LifeBuilder offered in all states, issue ages 0-85.
Royal Neighbors of America: royalneighbors.org; 800-770-4561; “Royal Prime” permanent whole life offered in all states EXCEPT AL AK DE DC HI LA MA MT NV NH NY SC VT WI WY; issue ages 0-85. Policies bought at ages 0-60 may be paid up by age 65.
Senior Market Sales Inc.: seniormarketsales.com; 402-397-3311; whole life policies offered in all states EXCEPT NY; issue ages 0-80.
Starmount Life Insurance Co.: insurancelife.com; 1-888-saylife or 888-729-5433 x112; “Value Life Gold” offered in all states EXCEPT AL DE DC HI ID IA MS MT NV NH NJ NY UT WY; issue ages 0-80.
Texas Life Insurance Co.: texaslife.com; 800-283-9233 x6845; “VPL-plus” offered in all states EXCEPT NY; issue ages 17-70 (dependents 6 mos-18 yrs).
Transamerica Worksite Marketing: transamericaworksite.com; 800-322-0426; “Transure” offered in all states EXCEPT CA FL MA MN MT NJ OR PA VT VA WA; issue ages 16-70 (children or grandchildren ages 0-24).
United of Omaha Life Insurance Co.: mutualofomaha.com; 402-351-5770; “Whole Life Express” offered in all states EXCEPT NY; issue ages 0-80.
Universal American: universalamerican.com; 800-538-1053 x8357; “Senior Tribute” final expense offered in all states EXCEPT AK HI MN MT RI WA WY; issue ages 45-85.
Unum: unum.com; 866-679-3054; “Interest Sensitive Whole Life” offered in all states; issue ages 15-80 (dependents 14 days to 24 yrs).
Whole Life insurance has seen a huge resurgence of interest in recent years. Many whole life policies are substituting for long-term care insurance for those who cannot qualify for that specific insurance policy; the fact that most whole life insurance policies can include a rider allowing for “accelerated benefits” in case of terminal illness has been a real boon for both insurers and for consumers. Also the tax benefits as opposed to an annuity or other investment is a consideration.
Many of the products listed below are only for workplace insurance offerings, but many also offer individual policies. This list may not be completely comprehensive. Please also consult the 2008 list for other companies, and your state insurance commissioners office. For the latter you can begin the search by going to NAIC online (National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners) and then click on your state; this will take you to your state's insurance commission and you will find a comprehensive listing of insurers who are licensed to operate in your state.
American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus (Aflac): aflac.com; 800-992-3522; all states; issue ages 18-65.
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Co.: americo.com; 800-231-0801 x 8410; all states EXCEPT AL ME MS NY VT WA, “Ultra Protector” series issue ages 50-85.
Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Co.: cbl-life.com; 800-367-7814; all states EXCEPT MN MT NJ NY ND VT WA WV; “Preferred Golden Protector” issue ages 15-85.
EMC National Life: emcnationallife.com; 800-232-5818; all states EXCEPT DE MD MA NJ NY; Workplace Increasing Whole Life issue ages 18-70. EMC National Life Co., at emcnl.com, also offers “Worksite Increasing Whole Life” for issue ages 0-70.
Equitable Life & Casualty: equilife.com; 800-352-5170; all states EXCEPT AR CA DC FL GA HI MD MA MN NJ NY NC PA WA WV WI; issue ages for Equilife Legacy 3 is 18-84. Equilife Legacy I is offered in all states EXCEPT AL CA DC HI MD MA MN NJ NY WA WI, same issue ages. Equilife Legacy II is offered in all states EXCEPT AL CA DC FL GA HI MD MA MN NJ NY NC PA WA WV WI, same issue ages.
Illinois Mutual: illinoismutual.com; 800-437-7355 x782; “Interest Sensitive Whole Life Insurance” is offered in all states EXCEPT AK HI MT NJ NY PA; issue ages for employees is 15-79.
M & O Marketing: mandomarketing.com; 800-228-5964; all states; issue ages 0-85.
Medico Insurance Co.: gomedico.com; 800-228-6080; offered in AR CO ID IA KY MO NE NV NM OK OR SC TN UT WV WY; issue ages 50-85 for “Final Expense Whole Life A04 or A05”.
National Life Insurance Co.: nationallife.com; 802-229-3333; NL LifeBuilder offered in all states, issue ages 0-85.
Royal Neighbors of America: royalneighbors.org; 800-770-4561; “Royal Prime” permanent whole life offered in all states EXCEPT AL AK DE DC HI LA MA MT NV NH NY SC VT WI WY; issue ages 0-85. Policies bought at ages 0-60 may be paid up by age 65.
Senior Market Sales Inc.: seniormarketsales.com; 402-397-3311; whole life policies offered in all states EXCEPT NY; issue ages 0-80.
Starmount Life Insurance Co.: insurancelife.com; 1-888-saylife or 888-729-5433 x112; “Value Life Gold” offered in all states EXCEPT AL DE DC HI ID IA MS MT NV NH NJ NY UT WY; issue ages 0-80.
Texas Life Insurance Co.: texaslife.com; 800-283-9233 x6845; “VPL-plus” offered in all states EXCEPT NY; issue ages 17-70 (dependents 6 mos-18 yrs).
Transamerica Worksite Marketing: transamericaworksite.com; 800-322-0426; “Transure” offered in all states EXCEPT CA FL MA MN MT NJ OR PA VT VA WA; issue ages 16-70 (children or grandchildren ages 0-24).
United of Omaha Life Insurance Co.: mutualofomaha.com; 402-351-5770; “Whole Life Express” offered in all states EXCEPT NY; issue ages 0-80.
Universal American: universalamerican.com; 800-538-1053 x8357; “Senior Tribute” final expense offered in all states EXCEPT AK HI MN MT RI WA WY; issue ages 45-85.
Unum: unum.com; 866-679-3054; “Interest Sensitive Whole Life” offered in all states; issue ages 15-80 (dependents 14 days to 24 yrs).
2009 List of Providers of 401k Plans
by L.A.S.
The following is a list of companies that offer 401k plans. It is up to date as of Fall 2009, but we cannot guarantee that it is an all-inclusive list. Please consult with your certified financial planner regarding specific features of plans that will best fit your needs. Providing this list does NOT imply endorsement, and none should be assumed. You must determine which company's plans best suit you.
All allow tax-free loans from your plan EXCEPT Redwood Administrators, and Underwriters Marketing Service. All provide 401K rollover and consolidation EXCEPT Best 401K Inc., and Omega Recordkeeping.
ADP Retirement Services: adp401k.com; 973-712-2000
Advanced Benefits Consulting: 314-539-0836
Alliance Benefit Group: abgnational.com; 800-242-2356
American Pension Services LLC: americanpension.net; 813-281-0707 x110
American United Life Insurance Co: oneamerica.com; 866-313-7355
The Best 401K Inc.:thebest401k.com; 800-430-8054
CBIZ Retirement Consulting Inc.: cbiz.com/retirement; 407-475-1765
Charles Schwab: scrs.schwab.com; 877-456-0777
CPI Qualified Plan Consultants Inc.: cpiqpc.com; 800-279-9916 x765
Daily Access Corp.: dailyaccess.com; 888-535-4322
Elite Marketing Insurance Designers of Houston: elitemktg.net; 800-477-3548
Expert Plan Inc.: expertplan.com; 609-918-2500
Future Benefits of America: fb401k.com; 901-843-7799
Gradient Investments: gradientinvestments.com; 888-824-3525
Great-West Retirement Services: gwrs.com; 800-537-2033
Guardian Insurance & Annuity Co. Inc.: guardianlife.com or guardianretirement.com; 866-390-7268
Harbor Insurance Marketing Inc.: harborins.com; 866-424-2167
ING: ingretirementplans.com; 888-639-2798
Ingham Retirement Group: ingham.com; 305-671-2200
Lafayette Life Insurance Co.: lafayettelife.com; 765-477-7411
Lincoln Trust Co.: LincolnTrustCo.com; 303-658-3000
Managed Resources: mgdresources.com; 208-773-6924
MBM Advisors Inc.: mbm-inc.com; 713-221-3117
McCready and Keene: mcak.com; 804-639-1395
Mercer: mercer.com; 857-362-2000
Mutual of Omaha: getretirementright.com; 877-401-7253
MVP Plan Administrators Inc.: mvpplanadmin.com; 866-687-6877
Noble-Davis Consulting Inc.: noblepension.com; 440-498-8408
Omega Recordkeeping Group: onlineretirement.org; 864-699-6900
The Online 401K: theonline401k.com; 877-775-4015
Paychex Inc.: paychex.com; 800-322-7292
Principal Financial Group: principal.com; 800-986-3343
Putnam Investments: putnam.com/401k; 800-719-9914
Redwood Administrators Inc.: redwoodadmin.com; 866-724-7770
The Retirement Advantage Inc.: tra401k.com; 888-872-2364
The Revzon Consulting Group: revzonconsulting.com; 877-254-7085
Securian Financial Group Inc.: securian.com; 877-876-4015
The Standard: standard.com; 877-805-1127
Transamerica Retirement Services: ta-retirement.com; 888-401-5826
Underwriters Marketing Service Inc.: callums.com; 856-727-1900
USI Consulting Group: usicg.com; 860-633-5283
Vaughan & Associates Inc.: retirementplansolutions.com; 864-271-1298
Wells Fargo: wellsfargo.com; 800-368-1225
Wellth Counselors: inthesafe.com; 970-744-4626
Best wishes!
The following is a list of companies that offer 401k plans. It is up to date as of Fall 2009, but we cannot guarantee that it is an all-inclusive list. Please consult with your certified financial planner regarding specific features of plans that will best fit your needs. Providing this list does NOT imply endorsement, and none should be assumed. You must determine which company's plans best suit you.
All allow tax-free loans from your plan EXCEPT Redwood Administrators, and Underwriters Marketing Service. All provide 401K rollover and consolidation EXCEPT Best 401K Inc., and Omega Recordkeeping.
ADP Retirement Services: adp401k.com; 973-712-2000
Advanced Benefits Consulting: 314-539-0836
Alliance Benefit Group: abgnational.com; 800-242-2356
American Pension Services LLC: americanpension.net; 813-281-0707 x110
American United Life Insurance Co: oneamerica.com; 866-313-7355
The Best 401K Inc.:thebest401k.com; 800-430-8054
CBIZ Retirement Consulting Inc.: cbiz.com/retirement; 407-475-1765
Charles Schwab: scrs.schwab.com; 877-456-0777
CPI Qualified Plan Consultants Inc.: cpiqpc.com; 800-279-9916 x765
Daily Access Corp.: dailyaccess.com; 888-535-4322
Elite Marketing Insurance Designers of Houston: elitemktg.net; 800-477-3548
Expert Plan Inc.: expertplan.com; 609-918-2500
Future Benefits of America: fb401k.com; 901-843-7799
Gradient Investments: gradientinvestments.com; 888-824-3525
Great-West Retirement Services: gwrs.com; 800-537-2033
Guardian Insurance & Annuity Co. Inc.: guardianlife.com or guardianretirement.com; 866-390-7268
Harbor Insurance Marketing Inc.: harborins.com; 866-424-2167
ING: ingretirementplans.com; 888-639-2798
Ingham Retirement Group: ingham.com; 305-671-2200
Lafayette Life Insurance Co.: lafayettelife.com; 765-477-7411
Lincoln Trust Co.: LincolnTrustCo.com; 303-658-3000
Managed Resources: mgdresources.com; 208-773-6924
MBM Advisors Inc.: mbm-inc.com; 713-221-3117
McCready and Keene: mcak.com; 804-639-1395
Mercer: mercer.com; 857-362-2000
Mutual of Omaha: getretirementright.com; 877-401-7253
MVP Plan Administrators Inc.: mvpplanadmin.com; 866-687-6877
Noble-Davis Consulting Inc.: noblepension.com; 440-498-8408
Omega Recordkeeping Group: onlineretirement.org; 864-699-6900
The Online 401K: theonline401k.com; 877-775-4015
Paychex Inc.: paychex.com; 800-322-7292
Principal Financial Group: principal.com; 800-986-3343
Putnam Investments: putnam.com/401k; 800-719-9914
Redwood Administrators Inc.: redwoodadmin.com; 866-724-7770
The Retirement Advantage Inc.: tra401k.com; 888-872-2364
The Revzon Consulting Group: revzonconsulting.com; 877-254-7085
Securian Financial Group Inc.: securian.com; 877-876-4015
The Standard: standard.com; 877-805-1127
Transamerica Retirement Services: ta-retirement.com; 888-401-5826
Underwriters Marketing Service Inc.: callums.com; 856-727-1900
USI Consulting Group: usicg.com; 860-633-5283
Vaughan & Associates Inc.: retirementplansolutions.com; 864-271-1298
Wells Fargo: wellsfargo.com; 800-368-1225
Wellth Counselors: inthesafe.com; 970-744-4626
Best wishes!
Do You Think Insurers Should Get Away with Denying Maternity Coverage by Calling a Prior C-Section a "Pre-Existing Condition"?
by L.A.S.
Another horror story seems too ridiculous to be true, but unfortunately it is. It seems that due to the lack of explicit regulation by some states, insurers can refuse to cover maternity care. This is not just a matter of a few cases of women being denied payment by the insurance company for their maternity stays in the hospital. This is built-in sexism.
Even though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires employers with more than 15 workers to include maternity benefits in their insurance packages -- only 14 states require comprehensive maternity care to be included in coverage in policies sold on the individual market. Most individual insurers don't cover maternity care, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise.
See the article from SIEU at http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/insurance-companies-consider-c-section-birth-pre-existing-condition.php
Even those women who thought they had good insurance, and maternity coverage, have found themselves stuck with as much as $25,000 in health care bills that they were expected to pay out-of-pocket.
Funny, somehow it seems to me that if MEN had the babies, the insurance companies would not even try to pull stuff like this. What do you think?
Another horror story seems too ridiculous to be true, but unfortunately it is. It seems that due to the lack of explicit regulation by some states, insurers can refuse to cover maternity care. This is not just a matter of a few cases of women being denied payment by the insurance company for their maternity stays in the hospital. This is built-in sexism.
Even though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires employers with more than 15 workers to include maternity benefits in their insurance packages -- only 14 states require comprehensive maternity care to be included in coverage in policies sold on the individual market. Most individual insurers don't cover maternity care, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise.
See the article from SIEU at http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/insurance-companies-consider-c-section-birth-pre-existing-condition.php
Even those women who thought they had good insurance, and maternity coverage, have found themselves stuck with as much as $25,000 in health care bills that they were expected to pay out-of-pocket.
Funny, somehow it seems to me that if MEN had the babies, the insurance companies would not even try to pull stuff like this. What do you think?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Getting Beaten by Your Husband Is an Excuse to Deny Ins. Coverage?
by L.A.S.
This is unbelievable. I keep saying that I am not an apologist for the insurance companies. I try to portray them as reasonable, given the fact that they do have to make a profit to stay in business. And then they pull stuff like this.
A woman was dropped from her insurance plan because she was abused by her husband. Their rationale appears to be that because, she was beaten badly enough to need medical attention, she will probably wind up in the hospital again. Abusive husbands tend to repeat their behavior, in other words.
But to penalize the woman by denying her continued coverage is just unconscionable. That is penalizing the victim, and it is unacceptable.
You may read the whole article plus some commentary by clicking on this story: http://minnieapolis.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/16/3279449-heartless-logic-getting-beaten-by-your-husband-is-an-excuse-to-deny-ins-coverage
A quote from the article: "Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure."
ARRGGHH!! Sometimes I just have to scream, you know what I mean?
--30--
This is unbelievable. I keep saying that I am not an apologist for the insurance companies. I try to portray them as reasonable, given the fact that they do have to make a profit to stay in business. And then they pull stuff like this.
A woman was dropped from her insurance plan because she was abused by her husband. Their rationale appears to be that because, she was beaten badly enough to need medical attention, she will probably wind up in the hospital again. Abusive husbands tend to repeat their behavior, in other words.
But to penalize the woman by denying her continued coverage is just unconscionable. That is penalizing the victim, and it is unacceptable.
You may read the whole article plus some commentary by clicking on this story: http://minnieapolis.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/16/3279449-heartless-logic-getting-beaten-by-your-husband-is-an-excuse-to-deny-ins-coverage
A quote from the article: "Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure."
ARRGGHH!! Sometimes I just have to scream, you know what I mean?
--30--
Looking for a Company to Handle Enrollments? Lots to Choose From
by L.A.S. --
If you cannot find a company to handle the enrollment process for your group health plans (or other insurance plans), then by gosh, you just are not looking. There are so many companies that handle this service, that I cannot give a comprehensive listing of all the variables in types of policies they service, whether they do online enrollment (most do) or webcast, or how big your group has to be. I will just give you the company name, website and phone number.
I will, however, also list here those that do phone enrollment: 4MyBenefits, Aegias Corp., Alliance Benefit Group, American Insurnet, ATD Employer Solutions, Benefit Associates, Benefit Communications, Benefit Enrollment Services, Benefit Express, Benefit Resources, Benefit Decisions, Benelogic, Black Mountain Group, CB Solutions, Clear Benefits, Colonial Life has an enrollment call center option, Complete Benefit alliance, Cornerstone, Corporate Benefit Solutions (call center), Corporate Benefit Specialists, Cost Containment Group, Emerson Reid, Empliant, Employee Benefit Comm., Employee Family Protection, Employee Security Plans (call center), EOI Service, Government Benefit Services, H & G Benefits, HR Technology Advisors, Impact Enrollment, ING (thru enrollment firms), National Benefit Consultants, National Benefits Group of America, National Enrollment Services, Online Insurance Services, OptiMed Health Plans, Parker Group, SHPS, Titan Benefit (dedicated call center), United Group Programs, Univers Workplace Benefits (3 call centers across the country), Wachovia Insurance, Workscape, Worksite Services.
This info is dated from 2008, the most recent available -- so bear in mind that some details may have changed. Good luck!
4MyBenefits: 800-734-5144; 4mybenefits.com; all states.
A.D.A.M. Inc.: 516-414-7000; adam.com, all states.
AEGIAS Corp.: 800-537-5154; aegias.com; all states.
Alliance Benefit Group: abgnational.com; all states.
American Insurenet: 800-333-4638 x125; americaninsurnet.com, all states EXCEPT HI, NY.
Andrew & Alexander Inc.: 888-636-0404; only in AR, LA, OK, TX.
ATD Employer Solutions: 877-782-8060; atdemployersolutions.com; only in IL, IN, IA, MO, WI.
Benefit Associates Inc.: 800-400-8016; benecenter.com; all states.
Benefit Communications Inc.: 800-489-3786; benefitcommunications.com; all states.
Benefit Enrollment Services Inc.: 800-838-1320; besibenefits.com; available in AZ, CA, FL, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, MN, MS, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WI.
Benefit Express: 847-637-1551; benefitexpress.info; all states.
Benefit Resources Inc.: 800-339-4793; britulsa.com; available in AZ, CA, CO, GA, IA, KS, LA, MO, NE, OK, PA, TX.
BenefitDecisions: 312-376-0442; benefitdecisions.com; all states.
Benelogic: 877-716-8778; benelogic.com; all states.
BeneTrac: 619-788-5800; BeneTrac.com; all states.
Black Mountain Group: 312-376-0442; blackmountaingroup.com; all states.
Brokers National Life Assurance Co.: 800-798-1125; bnlac.com; available in all states EXCEPT CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT.
CBSolutions: 800-941-9714; cbsolutionslic.net; all states.
ClearBenefits: 888-398-9534; myclearbenefits.com; all states.
Colonial Life: 800-845-7330; ColonialLife.com; all states EXCEPT NY.
Complete Benefit Alliance: 800-211-2797; cba-companies.com; all states.
Cornerstone Enrollment Services: 866-370-3401; Cornerstonevb.com; all states.
Corporate Benefit Solutions Inc.: 888-313-7299; cbs-ga.com; available in AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX.
Corporate Benefit Specialists: 800-264-0073; available in AR, CO, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, NC, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX.
Cost Containment Group: costcontainmentcorp.com; all states.
EMC National Life Co.: 515-345-4219; emcnl.com; all states EXCEPT NJ, NY.
Emerson Reid & Co.: 484-421-3414; emersonreid.com; all states.
Empliant: 919-968-9898; empliant.com; all states.
Employee Benefit Communications: 813-639-0099; ebcfl.com; all states.
Employee Family Protection Inc.: 860-659-1323; www.EFP@NOW.com; all states EXCEPT AR, HI, NM, WA.
Employee Security Plans Inc.: 800-373-3771; all states.
EOI Service Co. Inc.: 800-229-4364 x3303; eoiservice.com; all states.
Government Benefit Services: 561-427-7264; govbenefit.biz; all states.
H & G Benefits: 800-929-9525 x109; hngbenefits.com; all states except WY.
HR Technology Advisors: 508-520-9800; hrtadvisors.com; all states.
HRCG: 801-765-4417; hrconsultinggroup.com; all states.
Impact Enrollment Solutions: 888-846-1176; impactenrollment.com; all states.
Infinisource Inc.: 800-300-3838; all states.
ING Employee Benefits: 800-537-5024; ingemployeebenefits-us.com; all states.
Lincoln Financial Group: 877-Ask-Lincoln; LincolnFinancial.com; all states.
National Benefit Consultants Inc.: 480-940-0070; nbcbenefits.com; all states.
National Benefits Group of America: 800-330-7735; nbgamerica.net; all states.
National Enrollment Services: 800-966-6637; nesbenefits.com; all states.
Online Insurance Services Inc.: 866-266-3966; www.oisworld.com; available in AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, O, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI, WY.
OptiMed Health Plans: 800-482-8770 x215; optimedhealth.com; all states EXCEPT CT, NH, VT, WA.
The Parker Group: 800-655-3161; parkerbenefits.com; all states.
Paylogix: 800-622-4131; paylogix.com; all states EXCEPT AK, NV, NH.
Rae Rocco: 702-897-9929; only in AZ, CA, NV, UT.
SHPS: 888-421-7477; carewisehealth.com; all states.
Titan Benefit Communications: 888-35-Titan; titan-benefits.com; all states.
Transcend Technologies Group: 877-426-8750; transcendtechgroup.com; all states.
United Group Programs Inc.: 800-482-8770 x215; ugpinc.com; all states.
Univers Workplace Benefits: 800-343-0240; universworkplace.com; all states.
Voluntary Benefits Systems Inc.: 800-229-1119; voluntarybenefits.net; all states.
Wachovia Insurance Services Inc.: WachoviaInsurance.com; all states.
Workscape: 508-573-9000; workscape.com; all states.
Worksite Services Inc.: 800-862-8963; worksiteservicesinc.com; available in FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, VA.
If you cannot find a company to handle the enrollment process for your group health plans (or other insurance plans), then by gosh, you just are not looking. There are so many companies that handle this service, that I cannot give a comprehensive listing of all the variables in types of policies they service, whether they do online enrollment (most do) or webcast, or how big your group has to be. I will just give you the company name, website and phone number.
I will, however, also list here those that do phone enrollment: 4MyBenefits, Aegias Corp., Alliance Benefit Group, American Insurnet, ATD Employer Solutions, Benefit Associates, Benefit Communications, Benefit Enrollment Services, Benefit Express, Benefit Resources, Benefit Decisions, Benelogic, Black Mountain Group, CB Solutions, Clear Benefits, Colonial Life has an enrollment call center option, Complete Benefit alliance, Cornerstone, Corporate Benefit Solutions (call center), Corporate Benefit Specialists, Cost Containment Group, Emerson Reid, Empliant, Employee Benefit Comm., Employee Family Protection, Employee Security Plans (call center), EOI Service, Government Benefit Services, H & G Benefits, HR Technology Advisors, Impact Enrollment, ING (thru enrollment firms), National Benefit Consultants, National Benefits Group of America, National Enrollment Services, Online Insurance Services, OptiMed Health Plans, Parker Group, SHPS, Titan Benefit (dedicated call center), United Group Programs, Univers Workplace Benefits (3 call centers across the country), Wachovia Insurance, Workscape, Worksite Services.
This info is dated from 2008, the most recent available -- so bear in mind that some details may have changed. Good luck!
4MyBenefits: 800-734-5144; 4mybenefits.com; all states.
A.D.A.M. Inc.: 516-414-7000; adam.com, all states.
AEGIAS Corp.: 800-537-5154; aegias.com; all states.
Alliance Benefit Group: abgnational.com; all states.
American Insurenet: 800-333-4638 x125; americaninsurnet.com, all states EXCEPT HI, NY.
Andrew & Alexander Inc.: 888-636-0404; only in AR, LA, OK, TX.
ATD Employer Solutions: 877-782-8060; atdemployersolutions.com; only in IL, IN, IA, MO, WI.
Benefit Associates Inc.: 800-400-8016; benecenter.com; all states.
Benefit Communications Inc.: 800-489-3786; benefitcommunications.com; all states.
Benefit Enrollment Services Inc.: 800-838-1320; besibenefits.com; available in AZ, CA, FL, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, MN, MS, NY, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WI.
Benefit Express: 847-637-1551; benefitexpress.info; all states.
Benefit Resources Inc.: 800-339-4793; britulsa.com; available in AZ, CA, CO, GA, IA, KS, LA, MO, NE, OK, PA, TX.
BenefitDecisions: 312-376-0442; benefitdecisions.com; all states.
Benelogic: 877-716-8778; benelogic.com; all states.
BeneTrac: 619-788-5800; BeneTrac.com; all states.
Black Mountain Group: 312-376-0442; blackmountaingroup.com; all states.
Brokers National Life Assurance Co.: 800-798-1125; bnlac.com; available in all states EXCEPT CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT.
CBSolutions: 800-941-9714; cbsolutionslic.net; all states.
ClearBenefits: 888-398-9534; myclearbenefits.com; all states.
Colonial Life: 800-845-7330; ColonialLife.com; all states EXCEPT NY.
Complete Benefit Alliance: 800-211-2797; cba-companies.com; all states.
Cornerstone Enrollment Services: 866-370-3401; Cornerstonevb.com; all states.
Corporate Benefit Solutions Inc.: 888-313-7299; cbs-ga.com; available in AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX.
Corporate Benefit Specialists: 800-264-0073; available in AR, CO, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, NE, NC, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX.
Cost Containment Group: costcontainmentcorp.com; all states.
EMC National Life Co.: 515-345-4219; emcnl.com; all states EXCEPT NJ, NY.
Emerson Reid & Co.: 484-421-3414; emersonreid.com; all states.
Empliant: 919-968-9898; empliant.com; all states.
Employee Benefit Communications: 813-639-0099; ebcfl.com; all states.
Employee Family Protection Inc.: 860-659-1323; www.EFP@NOW.com; all states EXCEPT AR, HI, NM, WA.
Employee Security Plans Inc.: 800-373-3771; all states.
EOI Service Co. Inc.: 800-229-4364 x3303; eoiservice.com; all states.
Government Benefit Services: 561-427-7264; govbenefit.biz; all states.
H & G Benefits: 800-929-9525 x109; hngbenefits.com; all states except WY.
HR Technology Advisors: 508-520-9800; hrtadvisors.com; all states.
HRCG: 801-765-4417; hrconsultinggroup.com; all states.
Impact Enrollment Solutions: 888-846-1176; impactenrollment.com; all states.
Infinisource Inc.: 800-300-3838; all states.
ING Employee Benefits: 800-537-5024; ingemployeebenefits-us.com; all states.
Lincoln Financial Group: 877-Ask-Lincoln; LincolnFinancial.com; all states.
National Benefit Consultants Inc.: 480-940-0070; nbcbenefits.com; all states.
National Benefits Group of America: 800-330-7735; nbgamerica.net; all states.
National Enrollment Services: 800-966-6637; nesbenefits.com; all states.
Online Insurance Services Inc.: 866-266-3966; www.oisworld.com; available in AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, O, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI, WY.
OptiMed Health Plans: 800-482-8770 x215; optimedhealth.com; all states EXCEPT CT, NH, VT, WA.
The Parker Group: 800-655-3161; parkerbenefits.com; all states.
Paylogix: 800-622-4131; paylogix.com; all states EXCEPT AK, NV, NH.
Rae Rocco: 702-897-9929; only in AZ, CA, NV, UT.
SHPS: 888-421-7477; carewisehealth.com; all states.
Titan Benefit Communications: 888-35-Titan; titan-benefits.com; all states.
Transcend Technologies Group: 877-426-8750; transcendtechgroup.com; all states.
United Group Programs Inc.: 800-482-8770 x215; ugpinc.com; all states.
Univers Workplace Benefits: 800-343-0240; universworkplace.com; all states.
Voluntary Benefits Systems Inc.: 800-229-1119; voluntarybenefits.net; all states.
Wachovia Insurance Services Inc.: WachoviaInsurance.com; all states.
Workscape: 508-573-9000; workscape.com; all states.
Worksite Services Inc.: 800-862-8963; worksiteservicesinc.com; available in FL, GA, NC, SC, TN, VA.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Getting Down to the Truth Behind Wild Claims that Reform Bill will Put Grannies to Death
This week my thanks go out to another writer in the blogging universe called Minnie Apolis. He or she writes a varied column and this past week had a great article about the truth behind those wild emails. You know, the ones that claim that Pres. Obama's healthcare reform bill will encourage suicide as a way to keep Medicare's costs in line.
The title says it all: The Truth About Page 425 of the Healthcare Reform Bill; NO, They are NOT Going to Put Granny to Death!
PLEASE go to this link -- http://minnieapolis.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/10/3250470-the-truth-about-page-425-of-the-healthcare-reform-bill-no-they-are-not-going-to-put-granny-to-death?threadId=673317&commentId=9395279#c9395279
and read, and then send out emails to your friends spreading the truth behind this unfounded and irresponsible claim about the healthcare reform bill.
From the article:
The rumor or rumors maintain that a House bill would require Medicare beneficiaries to have a class or review every five years “to decide how to end their lives sooner.”
These spurious emails always add that “They're going to push suicide to cut Medicare spending!” All these emails seem to point to page 425 as the source of their claims.
What is actually on page 425?
There is a page 425. That is about all that the emails have gotten correct.
It says that Medicare is required to pay doctors for consultations regarding advance care planning, which may include things like making a living will, appointing a health proxy (a medical power-of-attorney), or indicating a preference for hospice care if necessary.
Medicare would pay for these sessions a maximum of once every five years.
And why would any bill even mention such consultations?
Because as it is now, no one is paid for their time to talk to you about things that need to be said and done. You may get a few minutes with a nurse or a hospital patient-representative. You may get a few forms pushed at you. But there is no incentive for anyone to actually sit down with you and go through all the options you have and what they really mean if one day you cannot indicate what you want done.
Thanks, Minnie! Speak the truth, everyone!
The title says it all: The Truth About Page 425 of the Healthcare Reform Bill; NO, They are NOT Going to Put Granny to Death!
PLEASE go to this link -- http://minnieapolis.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/10/3250470-the-truth-about-page-425-of-the-healthcare-reform-bill-no-they-are-not-going-to-put-granny-to-death?threadId=673317&commentId=9395279#c9395279
and read, and then send out emails to your friends spreading the truth behind this unfounded and irresponsible claim about the healthcare reform bill.
From the article:
The rumor or rumors maintain that a House bill would require Medicare beneficiaries to have a class or review every five years “to decide how to end their lives sooner.”
These spurious emails always add that “They're going to push suicide to cut Medicare spending!” All these emails seem to point to page 425 as the source of their claims.
What is actually on page 425?
There is a page 425. That is about all that the emails have gotten correct.
It says that Medicare is required to pay doctors for consultations regarding advance care planning, which may include things like making a living will, appointing a health proxy (a medical power-of-attorney), or indicating a preference for hospice care if necessary.
Medicare would pay for these sessions a maximum of once every five years.
And why would any bill even mention such consultations?
Because as it is now, no one is paid for their time to talk to you about things that need to be said and done. You may get a few minutes with a nurse or a hospital patient-representative. You may get a few forms pushed at you. But there is no incentive for anyone to actually sit down with you and go through all the options you have and what they really mean if one day you cannot indicate what you want done.
Thanks, Minnie! Speak the truth, everyone!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Change to Roth IRA Plan
Dear Readers,
Beginning in 2010, there will no longer be income limitations for those wishing to open a Roth savings account. So in other words, if you wish to rollover your plan assets to a Roth IRA, you no longer have to fork over 20 percent as mandatory withholding.
Your accountant or investment advisor will need to meet with you to ensure that you are both observing IRS rules regarding rollovers to a Roth IRA. Such as there has to be a “triggering event”, that is retirement, or being laid off, or qualifying under a hardship provision. For more complete information on these qualifying events, you may go to the IRS site at irs.gov/publications/p590/ch02.html.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! This has been a public service announcement.
Beginning in 2010, there will no longer be income limitations for those wishing to open a Roth savings account. So in other words, if you wish to rollover your plan assets to a Roth IRA, you no longer have to fork over 20 percent as mandatory withholding.
Your accountant or investment advisor will need to meet with you to ensure that you are both observing IRS rules regarding rollovers to a Roth IRA. Such as there has to be a “triggering event”, that is retirement, or being laid off, or qualifying under a hardship provision. For more complete information on these qualifying events, you may go to the IRS site at irs.gov/publications/p590/ch02.html.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! This has been a public service announcement.
Sick of the Insurance Industry Whining
by L.A.S.
Sorry, insurance executives, but I am just about sick of your whining that healthcare reform will threaten your business. OF COURSE, it will threaten your business! But it became necessary because the system is in danger of breaking down completely.
You, the insurance industry, found every dodge that you could to get around having to pay claims promptly. You, the insurance industry, found every way of weeding out the people who might actually use your product and cost you money. You, the insurance industry, then had the gall to flaunt your swollen purse by spending millions on lobbying and on extravagant getaways for your executives. Do you see the problem?
Some people just don't get it.
Now let me just say that my heart is not going to bleed for the insurance executives of this country. HOWEVER, I am going to be concerned that an abrupt change in the business model of the total insurance industry will affect the security of the investment. In other words, changing the business model could topple not only health insurance but also the life insurance, auto insurance, and annuity branches of the insurance tree, since many insurers cover all those bases.
We cannot go from a completely private model to a mostly public healthcare model unless we develop some kind of phase-in plan.
We would not be in this predicament if we had taken the opportunity in 1919 to start a national healthcare program at about the same time that other nations tackled this issue. Instead, we were sweet-talked by the life insurance industry which convinced us all that it was ready, willing and able to develop a private health insurance industry from scratch.
We never got such a golden opportunity again, not even when Pres. Johnson pushed through a Medicare and Medicaid program in the 1960s.
So that is why I have reluctantly concluded that we must go slow in this drive to develop some kind of public option for every American. We have to develop some long-term planning to phase in this program.
While I am on the subject of public option, I would appreciate it if people stuck to real numbers. The number “one hundred million” or even “a hundred fifty million” has been bandied about as the number of Americans who already have insurance that would switch to a public option if it were made available. That IS NOT TRUE.
The number came from a preliminary study, and yes, at first it did come up with about 125 million or so who might switch to a public option, as yet undefined.
HOWEVER, and I apologize for using so many capital letters in this article, but however, that number was rescinded when the study went back again when it had more specifics to go on.
The corrected final number was about 150 THOUSAND, not million! Repeat, 150 THOUSAND Americans might drop their private coverage and opt for the public option. That is a fraction of the original number and nothing that would drastically endanger the financial underpinnings of the insurance industry or of the public option.
Also I am not happy to see that Obama is proposing adding another layer of bureaucracy to our swelling government payroll. We could get the processing done more efficiently by farming it out to the private sector. We could process claims more efficiently by using private industry, because it already has more advanced computer software for processing medical insurance claims.
So while I readily admit there are pros and cons to the healthcare reform provisions and to the implementation of reforms, I am nonetheless going to stuff some cotton in my ears so I will not have to listen to any more whining from those insurance execs. OK?
Sorry, insurance executives, but I am just about sick of your whining that healthcare reform will threaten your business. OF COURSE, it will threaten your business! But it became necessary because the system is in danger of breaking down completely.
You, the insurance industry, found every dodge that you could to get around having to pay claims promptly. You, the insurance industry, found every way of weeding out the people who might actually use your product and cost you money. You, the insurance industry, then had the gall to flaunt your swollen purse by spending millions on lobbying and on extravagant getaways for your executives. Do you see the problem?
Some people just don't get it.
Now let me just say that my heart is not going to bleed for the insurance executives of this country. HOWEVER, I am going to be concerned that an abrupt change in the business model of the total insurance industry will affect the security of the investment. In other words, changing the business model could topple not only health insurance but also the life insurance, auto insurance, and annuity branches of the insurance tree, since many insurers cover all those bases.
We cannot go from a completely private model to a mostly public healthcare model unless we develop some kind of phase-in plan.
We would not be in this predicament if we had taken the opportunity in 1919 to start a national healthcare program at about the same time that other nations tackled this issue. Instead, we were sweet-talked by the life insurance industry which convinced us all that it was ready, willing and able to develop a private health insurance industry from scratch.
We never got such a golden opportunity again, not even when Pres. Johnson pushed through a Medicare and Medicaid program in the 1960s.
So that is why I have reluctantly concluded that we must go slow in this drive to develop some kind of public option for every American. We have to develop some long-term planning to phase in this program.
While I am on the subject of public option, I would appreciate it if people stuck to real numbers. The number “one hundred million” or even “a hundred fifty million” has been bandied about as the number of Americans who already have insurance that would switch to a public option if it were made available. That IS NOT TRUE.
The number came from a preliminary study, and yes, at first it did come up with about 125 million or so who might switch to a public option, as yet undefined.
HOWEVER, and I apologize for using so many capital letters in this article, but however, that number was rescinded when the study went back again when it had more specifics to go on.
The corrected final number was about 150 THOUSAND, not million! Repeat, 150 THOUSAND Americans might drop their private coverage and opt for the public option. That is a fraction of the original number and nothing that would drastically endanger the financial underpinnings of the insurance industry or of the public option.
Also I am not happy to see that Obama is proposing adding another layer of bureaucracy to our swelling government payroll. We could get the processing done more efficiently by farming it out to the private sector. We could process claims more efficiently by using private industry, because it already has more advanced computer software for processing medical insurance claims.
So while I readily admit there are pros and cons to the healthcare reform provisions and to the implementation of reforms, I am nonetheless going to stuff some cotton in my ears so I will not have to listen to any more whining from those insurance execs. OK?
How Much Will You Spend on Healthcare In Retirement?
By L.A.S.
Will Medicare really cover all or most of your health care expenses while you are retired? I witnessed the bills and stress that my parents went through after my father retired, and I am pretty sure that the answer is no.
The most recent surveys of annual out-of-pocket expenses for seniors show that seniors pay anywhere from $3800 to $8300. Again, this is OUT OF POCKET expenses. This does include your premiums for Medicare, which seem to increase every year.
The truth is that seniors spend MORE on out-of-pocket health care expenses than any other age group. Seniors 65 and over spent an average of $4888 per year on out-of-pocket, according to a 2004 study; that included deductibles, copays, insurance premiums, and miscellaneous expenses not covered by insurance.
I might as well take the opportunity to remind you that Medicare does not cover hearing aids, dental care, or vision needs. My mother was actually rather lucky that she had gotten dentures rather early in life and so did not have the rude awakening as to how expensive dental care has become.
Breaking down the senior demographic into smaller divisions shows that the older you are, the worse it gets. Those 65 to 74 spent $3850 a year; those 75 to 85 spent $5060 a year; and those 85 and older spent $8300 a year.
Try to stay out of the hospital. The deductible for a hospital stay under Medicare was $1068 in 2009. If you are unlucky enough to stay in the hospital for more than 60, you will then incur daily charges of $267 a day. After 90 days as an inpatient, those daily charges increase to $534. As a practical matter, the hospital and your doctor will do all they can to get you transferred to an intermediate care facility or released to your home. By an intermediate facility is meant a rehabilitation hospital, a day-care facility, or perhaps an assisted living home.
Medicaid was never intended to pay for long-term care in a nursing home. However, seniors have hit on ways of spending themselves down to poverty-level in a way that allows them to stay in a nursing home they already live in. These strategies include but are not limited to: divorce, transfer assets to children, or setting up irrevocable trusts.
Transferring assets to children is becoming less and less successful with increasing “look-back” periods for determining if you are trying to hide assets. You are subject to a five-year “look-back” period by the state in which you live, and any tangible assets that have been transferred during that time (especially cash, stock, real estate) Medicaid will add to your list of assets.
Seniors eligible for long-term care under Medicaid can keep a house and car, but the house's value is limited to $500,000. The cash assets cannot exceed $2000 for singles and $3000 for couples.
Will Medicare really cover all or most of your health care expenses while you are retired? I witnessed the bills and stress that my parents went through after my father retired, and I am pretty sure that the answer is no.
The most recent surveys of annual out-of-pocket expenses for seniors show that seniors pay anywhere from $3800 to $8300. Again, this is OUT OF POCKET expenses. This does include your premiums for Medicare, which seem to increase every year.
The truth is that seniors spend MORE on out-of-pocket health care expenses than any other age group. Seniors 65 and over spent an average of $4888 per year on out-of-pocket, according to a 2004 study; that included deductibles, copays, insurance premiums, and miscellaneous expenses not covered by insurance.
I might as well take the opportunity to remind you that Medicare does not cover hearing aids, dental care, or vision needs. My mother was actually rather lucky that she had gotten dentures rather early in life and so did not have the rude awakening as to how expensive dental care has become.
Breaking down the senior demographic into smaller divisions shows that the older you are, the worse it gets. Those 65 to 74 spent $3850 a year; those 75 to 85 spent $5060 a year; and those 85 and older spent $8300 a year.
Try to stay out of the hospital. The deductible for a hospital stay under Medicare was $1068 in 2009. If you are unlucky enough to stay in the hospital for more than 60, you will then incur daily charges of $267 a day. After 90 days as an inpatient, those daily charges increase to $534. As a practical matter, the hospital and your doctor will do all they can to get you transferred to an intermediate care facility or released to your home. By an intermediate facility is meant a rehabilitation hospital, a day-care facility, or perhaps an assisted living home.
Medicaid was never intended to pay for long-term care in a nursing home. However, seniors have hit on ways of spending themselves down to poverty-level in a way that allows them to stay in a nursing home they already live in. These strategies include but are not limited to: divorce, transfer assets to children, or setting up irrevocable trusts.
Transferring assets to children is becoming less and less successful with increasing “look-back” periods for determining if you are trying to hide assets. You are subject to a five-year “look-back” period by the state in which you live, and any tangible assets that have been transferred during that time (especially cash, stock, real estate) Medicaid will add to your list of assets.
Seniors eligible for long-term care under Medicaid can keep a house and car, but the house's value is limited to $500,000. The cash assets cannot exceed $2000 for singles and $3000 for couples.
Everybody's for Healthcare Reform, Till You Ask Them About Specifics
by L.A.S.
Polls show that the vast majority of us, 80 percent, are in favor of health care reform. But when you ask about specifics, then you have a much harder time arriving at a consensus. Each group that is being surveyed has concerns about different portions of the reform bills on the table (whether the so-called Kennedy bill or the moderate Baucus version) -- and each group has a different portion that it does not like.
When the survey asks whether the respondent favors a particular bill, support drops to 20 percent. And when you ask the public in general if they support improved records efficiency, again, 80 percent approve. BUT if you ask them if they favor centralized electronic medical records, then again, support drops way below half.
At this point, it is apropos to insert a lovely statistic regarding the cost savings that come from adopting computerized medical records: $81 BILLION annually!! BILLION!! PLUS we could improve accuracy and reduce medical errors, which is worth far more than money.
In regards to that last question, I suspect that it is the word “centralized” that upsets people, and frankly I do not blame them. I am all for electronic medical records; those with experience in using electronic records (such as the Veterans Administration) have a very good reputation for speed, efficiency and accuracy as a result of using electronic records.
But my point is that there is such a wide range of thoughts on what specific measures would improve American health care that it is extremely difficult to forge a common list of goals for what that reform ought to accomplish.
One of the major bones of contention is whether government ought to duplicate coverage offered by the private sector. I am of the belief that yes, if you want a public option, then the government is going to have to also insure people who are perfectly healthy and do not have chronic ailments -- in other words, the very people that the PRIVATE insurance sector dearly wants as a customer. To do otherwise is to wind up with a public option that is really the equivalent of the high-risk pool for drivers who can no longer get private automotive insurance.
Having government get stuck with a high-risk, high-expense pool of policy-holders is to invite economic disaster. The premiums will be high, because their usage of healthcare is high and they have serious or multiple health problems. This is NOT a good use of taxpayer dollars, and this is NOT going to be able to deliver on its promise of affordable health insurance for all those in the plan. The government will have to force young, healthy people to participate in the same pool as these high-risk or high-cost policy-holders, if it is going to remain financially sound and if it going to be able to cover a sizable number of Americans who do not currently carry health insurance.
I am sorry to have to explain this to you. And I am sorry if it is not what you want to hear. I do not like the prospect of forcing anyone to participate in any government plan or program, but I recognize the actuarial necessity for it.
Polls show that the vast majority of us, 80 percent, are in favor of health care reform. But when you ask about specifics, then you have a much harder time arriving at a consensus. Each group that is being surveyed has concerns about different portions of the reform bills on the table (whether the so-called Kennedy bill or the moderate Baucus version) -- and each group has a different portion that it does not like.
When the survey asks whether the respondent favors a particular bill, support drops to 20 percent. And when you ask the public in general if they support improved records efficiency, again, 80 percent approve. BUT if you ask them if they favor centralized electronic medical records, then again, support drops way below half.
At this point, it is apropos to insert a lovely statistic regarding the cost savings that come from adopting computerized medical records: $81 BILLION annually!! BILLION!! PLUS we could improve accuracy and reduce medical errors, which is worth far more than money.
In regards to that last question, I suspect that it is the word “centralized” that upsets people, and frankly I do not blame them. I am all for electronic medical records; those with experience in using electronic records (such as the Veterans Administration) have a very good reputation for speed, efficiency and accuracy as a result of using electronic records.
But my point is that there is such a wide range of thoughts on what specific measures would improve American health care that it is extremely difficult to forge a common list of goals for what that reform ought to accomplish.
One of the major bones of contention is whether government ought to duplicate coverage offered by the private sector. I am of the belief that yes, if you want a public option, then the government is going to have to also insure people who are perfectly healthy and do not have chronic ailments -- in other words, the very people that the PRIVATE insurance sector dearly wants as a customer. To do otherwise is to wind up with a public option that is really the equivalent of the high-risk pool for drivers who can no longer get private automotive insurance.
Having government get stuck with a high-risk, high-expense pool of policy-holders is to invite economic disaster. The premiums will be high, because their usage of healthcare is high and they have serious or multiple health problems. This is NOT a good use of taxpayer dollars, and this is NOT going to be able to deliver on its promise of affordable health insurance for all those in the plan. The government will have to force young, healthy people to participate in the same pool as these high-risk or high-cost policy-holders, if it is going to remain financially sound and if it going to be able to cover a sizable number of Americans who do not currently carry health insurance.
I am sorry to have to explain this to you. And I am sorry if it is not what you want to hear. I do not like the prospect of forcing anyone to participate in any government plan or program, but I recognize the actuarial necessity for it.
Maggie Mahar's New Book on Moyers re Money-Driven Healthcare
by L.A.S.
I have been citing and linking to Maggie Mahar's web site for at least a year. To my great joy she has finally published a book and has appeared on PBS's weekly Bill Moyers program. The book is titled, “Money-Driven Medicine: What's Wrong with America's Healthcare and How to Fix It.”
Let me say that I am so glad for Ms. Mahar that her hard journalistic work has finally come together into a book and documentary. She demonstrates what it is really like for doctors who came out of medical school eager to heal people, and then get bulldozed by a corporate form of medicine that tells them they have to bring in X amount of dollars per week for the practice.
Patients who do not have a primary care doctor wind up going to see several specialists. This fragmentation of medical care not only is more expensive, but less cohesive and may even endanger your life. Lack of oversight by one coordinating physician means no one is checking whether your medications are duplicating or cancelling each other out.
Moyers spared no mercy on the current Obama administration for how it has changed since Obama was a candidate and promised and end to the bad old ways of negotiating programs behind closed doors.
Bill Moyers featured the book on his Friday PBS show on Aug. 28. Please visit his site at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/profile.html for the interview and the broadcast of the Alex Gibney documentary by the same name. You can also click on a box on the right-hand column to ask Maggie Mahar a question about health care reform.
The web site for the book with clips and transcripts of the interview on Bill Moyers is at http://moneydrivenmedicine.org/
I have been citing and linking to Maggie Mahar's web site for at least a year. To my great joy she has finally published a book and has appeared on PBS's weekly Bill Moyers program. The book is titled, “Money-Driven Medicine: What's Wrong with America's Healthcare and How to Fix It.”
Let me say that I am so glad for Ms. Mahar that her hard journalistic work has finally come together into a book and documentary. She demonstrates what it is really like for doctors who came out of medical school eager to heal people, and then get bulldozed by a corporate form of medicine that tells them they have to bring in X amount of dollars per week for the practice.
Patients who do not have a primary care doctor wind up going to see several specialists. This fragmentation of medical care not only is more expensive, but less cohesive and may even endanger your life. Lack of oversight by one coordinating physician means no one is checking whether your medications are duplicating or cancelling each other out.
Moyers spared no mercy on the current Obama administration for how it has changed since Obama was a candidate and promised and end to the bad old ways of negotiating programs behind closed doors.
BARACK OBAMA: The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what, the chairman of the committee who pushed the law through went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that. That's an example of the same old game-playing in Washington. I don't want to learn how to play the game better. I want to put an end to the game-playing.
BILL MOYERS: Now look at this recent story in the LOS ANGELES TIMES. Lo and behold, since the election, the pharmaceutical industry's $2 million dollars a year superstar lobbyist Billy Tauzin has morphed into President Obama's pal. Tauzin says the President has promised not to pressure the drug companies to negotiate with the government for lower drug prices and has agreed not to allow cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada or Europe - contrary to the position taken by candidate Obama…
Bill Moyers featured the book on his Friday PBS show on Aug. 28. Please visit his site at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/profile.html for the interview and the broadcast of the Alex Gibney documentary by the same name. You can also click on a box on the right-hand column to ask Maggie Mahar a question about health care reform.
The web site for the book with clips and transcripts of the interview on Bill Moyers is at http://moneydrivenmedicine.org/
Canadian Drug Prices Up Too -- by Almost 16 Per Cent
by L.A.S.
If you've been idealizing the Canadian health care system because it appears to work while keeping costs under control -- that may be. But the fact remains that overall medical care costs (that is, everything except medications) rose 13 percent in 2008 and just over 14 percent in 2009. And prescription prices rose 15.9 percent so far in 2009.
Canadians are feeling squeezed by the recession just as much as we are. Nervous Canadians are taking advantage of their healthcare benefits, and paying more attention to wellness issues. Among employers, wellness programs are gaining support as a way to control costs while reducing absenteeism and increasing productivity.
If you've been idealizing the Canadian health care system because it appears to work while keeping costs under control -- that may be. But the fact remains that overall medical care costs (that is, everything except medications) rose 13 percent in 2008 and just over 14 percent in 2009. And prescription prices rose 15.9 percent so far in 2009.
Canadians are feeling squeezed by the recession just as much as we are. Nervous Canadians are taking advantage of their healthcare benefits, and paying more attention to wellness issues. Among employers, wellness programs are gaining support as a way to control costs while reducing absenteeism and increasing productivity.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Declined for Disability Insurance? Common reasons why, and what to do
by L.A.S.
The most common reasons for being declined for a disability insurance policy are:
1. Age
2. Dangerous occupation (often this includes building trades like electrician or roofer)
3. Employee of the U.S. Government
4. Income (too low or too high)
5. Lack of U.S. citizenship or green card.
6. New business or occupation (lack of actuarial data)
7. Overall poor health
8. Overweight, occasionally severely underweight people may be denied also)
9. Work or travel in foreign countries.
10. Works out of one's home.
In addition, the fact of having a dangerous hobby can cost you any kind of life or health insurance. A hobby of flying a plane is most often cited in insurance courses.
Common Diseases or Conditions that Cause Denial of Disability or Long-term Care Policies:
1. Asthma
2. Arthritis
3. Alcoholism or Drug Abuse
4. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
5. Cancer
6. Crohn's Disease
7. Diabetes
8. Epilepsy
9. Heart Attack
10. Hypertension, especially if you take multiple medications
11. Lupus
12. Mental Disorders
13. Multiple Sclerosis (BTW, Minnesota has a statistically high incidence of M.S., and so dread disease policies exclude it in the list of conditions covered by the policy)
14. Overweight
15. Respiratory Diseases such as emphysema
16. Sleep Apnea
What kinds of strategies or limitations might you have to accept in order to get any type of disability insurance?
1. An exclusion for conditions related to the reason for the denial. Example: exclude injuries related to on-the-job accident/injury if the reason for denial was that you are in a dangerous occupation. This would still cover you for off-duty injuries or illnesses.
2. A longer elimination period (the wait between an injury or illness and the time you may first draw benefits).
3. A shorter benefit period. Perhaps you only have six years between now and planned retirement at age 65; you could structure a policy to stop when you turn 65.
4. A smaller benefit. To me, this is the least satisfactory option because almost all disability insurances pay you a maximum of 65 percent of your regular income anyway. (And that is based on your base pay, not your paycheck with all overtime and bonuses included.) You may as well just stash away as much cash as possible for a rainy day.
5. OR all of the above.
But just because you have accepted an exclusion for your occupation does not mean that you can never collect on an on-the-job injury. You may be able to prove that an accident causing a broken back, for example, would have incapacitated even a person with a healthy back. So the fact that you declared a back problem when buying the policy may not affect the legitimacy of your claim.
This is just a few things to think about when considering buying disability insurance or finding some other strategy for replacing lost income when you are laid up -- or laid off.
The most common reasons for being declined for a disability insurance policy are:
1. Age
2. Dangerous occupation (often this includes building trades like electrician or roofer)
3. Employee of the U.S. Government
4. Income (too low or too high)
5. Lack of U.S. citizenship or green card.
6. New business or occupation (lack of actuarial data)
7. Overall poor health
8. Overweight, occasionally severely underweight people may be denied also)
9. Work or travel in foreign countries.
10. Works out of one's home.
In addition, the fact of having a dangerous hobby can cost you any kind of life or health insurance. A hobby of flying a plane is most often cited in insurance courses.
Common Diseases or Conditions that Cause Denial of Disability or Long-term Care Policies:
1. Asthma
2. Arthritis
3. Alcoholism or Drug Abuse
4. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
5. Cancer
6. Crohn's Disease
7. Diabetes
8. Epilepsy
9. Heart Attack
10. Hypertension, especially if you take multiple medications
11. Lupus
12. Mental Disorders
13. Multiple Sclerosis (BTW, Minnesota has a statistically high incidence of M.S., and so dread disease policies exclude it in the list of conditions covered by the policy)
14. Overweight
15. Respiratory Diseases such as emphysema
16. Sleep Apnea
What kinds of strategies or limitations might you have to accept in order to get any type of disability insurance?
1. An exclusion for conditions related to the reason for the denial. Example: exclude injuries related to on-the-job accident/injury if the reason for denial was that you are in a dangerous occupation. This would still cover you for off-duty injuries or illnesses.
2. A longer elimination period (the wait between an injury or illness and the time you may first draw benefits).
3. A shorter benefit period. Perhaps you only have six years between now and planned retirement at age 65; you could structure a policy to stop when you turn 65.
4. A smaller benefit. To me, this is the least satisfactory option because almost all disability insurances pay you a maximum of 65 percent of your regular income anyway. (And that is based on your base pay, not your paycheck with all overtime and bonuses included.) You may as well just stash away as much cash as possible for a rainy day.
5. OR all of the above.
But just because you have accepted an exclusion for your occupation does not mean that you can never collect on an on-the-job injury. You may be able to prove that an accident causing a broken back, for example, would have incapacitated even a person with a healthy back. So the fact that you declared a back problem when buying the policy may not affect the legitimacy of your claim.
This is just a few things to think about when considering buying disability insurance or finding some other strategy for replacing lost income when you are laid up -- or laid off.
Insurance Agents Don't Want to Scare Off Seniors with Too Much Information
by L.A.S.
I am going to assume that older readers out there will take offense at this. But financial advisors assume that seniors' decision-making skills will decline with age even if one does not have Alzheimer's or any other form of dementia.
Our brains temporarily store incoming streams of data -- numbers, words, phrases, pictures, and so forth -- while at the same trying to decide which of these data is important to us, to our own situation and values. We quickly go through processes of comparison and ranking of these bits of data. We also compare what is coming in to our own 'data banks', in other words what we have learned to be true about the world in general and about managing money in particular.
Brilliant people can juggle more bits of data than the rest of us. But all of us experience a bit of a slowdown in this process as we age. We can easily miss important facts because we are still trying to hold onto as many information bits as we can handle. We also tend, as ALL of us do, to look for the easy solution, which may not be in our best interests. As we get older, we also are more easily distracted or interrupted, so that we have to start over.
Seniors tend to compensate by taking more time to make a decision. This is perfectly all right. However, most sales people know that the decision delayed, is the decision NOT MADE. So give yourself a deadline to make a final decision. Write out what you feel you need to know to make an informed decision, then when you have gathered that information, sit down with your significant other and discuss what looks best for you.
My personal experience is that I can never find the absolute perfect choice, even when selecting so mundane an item as my apartment. I have to decide based on the best overall package of location, cost, space, and other amenities. I have made errors even after all that, but it is the best I know how to do.
Which features of a policy, annuity, or other financial package are MOST important to you? Weed out those options that do not offer them, but perhaps you might call the company rep to make sure that this is the case. The company might have another group of options that they did not even think you would be interested in.
I might mention that some features are not commonly advertised and you might not even know they are out there. For example, many insurance companies have policies with a return-of-premium rider. (This may be true of some term life insurance and of some 'dread disease' policies; the premiums are somewhat higher but the fact that it is virtually free after the return of your money, makes them very attractive.) A company may be allowed to offer certain riders in one state but not in another, but that is out of our control.
An example of a weeding-out process with annuities would first ask if you need it for an immediate payout, for the near future, or for 20-30 years from now. If tax considerations (for the beneficiaries) are paramount, then you might consider buying insurance instead. BTW if you cannot qualify for a long-term care policy, then maybe you could look into raising the value of your current life insurance if it has an accelerated benefit option.
To help you with the information-gathering phase, you might avail yourself of free lectures given by local banks or savings & loan offices. I went to one such lecture several years ago about the Roth IRA when that was a new option. I took notes and kept them for reference. Keep a notebook of notes taken at such lectures or seminars, so you can draw upon them when sorting through company offers.
Good luck!
I am going to assume that older readers out there will take offense at this. But financial advisors assume that seniors' decision-making skills will decline with age even if one does not have Alzheimer's or any other form of dementia.
Our brains temporarily store incoming streams of data -- numbers, words, phrases, pictures, and so forth -- while at the same trying to decide which of these data is important to us, to our own situation and values. We quickly go through processes of comparison and ranking of these bits of data. We also compare what is coming in to our own 'data banks', in other words what we have learned to be true about the world in general and about managing money in particular.
Brilliant people can juggle more bits of data than the rest of us. But all of us experience a bit of a slowdown in this process as we age. We can easily miss important facts because we are still trying to hold onto as many information bits as we can handle. We also tend, as ALL of us do, to look for the easy solution, which may not be in our best interests. As we get older, we also are more easily distracted or interrupted, so that we have to start over.
Seniors tend to compensate by taking more time to make a decision. This is perfectly all right. However, most sales people know that the decision delayed, is the decision NOT MADE. So give yourself a deadline to make a final decision. Write out what you feel you need to know to make an informed decision, then when you have gathered that information, sit down with your significant other and discuss what looks best for you.
My personal experience is that I can never find the absolute perfect choice, even when selecting so mundane an item as my apartment. I have to decide based on the best overall package of location, cost, space, and other amenities. I have made errors even after all that, but it is the best I know how to do.
Which features of a policy, annuity, or other financial package are MOST important to you? Weed out those options that do not offer them, but perhaps you might call the company rep to make sure that this is the case. The company might have another group of options that they did not even think you would be interested in.
I might mention that some features are not commonly advertised and you might not even know they are out there. For example, many insurance companies have policies with a return-of-premium rider. (This may be true of some term life insurance and of some 'dread disease' policies; the premiums are somewhat higher but the fact that it is virtually free after the return of your money, makes them very attractive.) A company may be allowed to offer certain riders in one state but not in another, but that is out of our control.
An example of a weeding-out process with annuities would first ask if you need it for an immediate payout, for the near future, or for 20-30 years from now. If tax considerations (for the beneficiaries) are paramount, then you might consider buying insurance instead. BTW if you cannot qualify for a long-term care policy, then maybe you could look into raising the value of your current life insurance if it has an accelerated benefit option.
To help you with the information-gathering phase, you might avail yourself of free lectures given by local banks or savings & loan offices. I went to one such lecture several years ago about the Roth IRA when that was a new option. I took notes and kept them for reference. Keep a notebook of notes taken at such lectures or seminars, so you can draw upon them when sorting through company offers.
Good luck!
Saturday, August 29, 2009
SEC Files Against Prime Capital
by L.A.S.
It just goes to show that wherever there's a free lunch, you're paying for it in the end.
Prime Capital Services, Inc., was named in a complaint filed by the SEC. Prime Capital allegedly lured seniors into buying unsuitable annuities with free lunches as bait.
Customers were told they could access their investments whenever they needed funds, but Prime Capital omitted informing them of fees for early withdrawals above a certain amount.
It just goes to show that wherever there's a free lunch, you're paying for it in the end.
Prime Capital Services, Inc., was named in a complaint filed by the SEC. Prime Capital allegedly lured seniors into buying unsuitable annuities with free lunches as bait.
Customers were told they could access their investments whenever they needed funds, but Prime Capital omitted informing them of fees for early withdrawals above a certain amount.
Proposed Bill SB 1297 Would Give Tax Break for Annuities
by L.A.S.
You would get an fifty percent tax exclusion on your annuity under a pair of proposed Congressional bills called the Retirement Security for Life Act. Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas are co-sponsors of this bill, SB 1297.
If you do not have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, you would benefit from this law. It provides for a fifty percent tax exclusion on up to $40,000 in annual income received from a non-qualified lifetime annuity.
A companion bill was introduced in the House, sponsored by Reps. Early Pomeroy of North Dakota and Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
You would get an fifty percent tax exclusion on your annuity under a pair of proposed Congressional bills called the Retirement Security for Life Act. Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas are co-sponsors of this bill, SB 1297.
If you do not have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, you would benefit from this law. It provides for a fifty percent tax exclusion on up to $40,000 in annual income received from a non-qualified lifetime annuity.
A companion bill was introduced in the House, sponsored by Reps. Early Pomeroy of North Dakota and Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
Are Agents Employees or Independent Contractors?
by L.A.S.
Three former agents for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company sued NML in a class-action lawsuit. They claimed that they were wrongfully designated independent contractors, and denied minimum wage, overtime, and other benefits.
The lawsuit is for $200 million.
It has been traditional that agents for almost all insurance companies are independent contractors who receive only commission for whatever they sell. I can tell you now that these agents would have to prove that NML closely supervised and controlled their hours and other details of their work.
Three former agents for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company sued NML in a class-action lawsuit. They claimed that they were wrongfully designated independent contractors, and denied minimum wage, overtime, and other benefits.
The lawsuit is for $200 million.
It has been traditional that agents for almost all insurance companies are independent contractors who receive only commission for whatever they sell. I can tell you now that these agents would have to prove that NML closely supervised and controlled their hours and other details of their work.
Beneficial Will Stop Selling Life Insurance and Annuities
by L.A.S.
Another victim of the subprime debacle has hit the skids. Beneficial Financial Group, a Mormon-owned company, declared it will have to stop issuing new life insurance and annuities by Oct. 31 of this year. It will put 150 people out of work promptly, and concedes it cannot compete against bigger companies offering more products.
The cause of this turn of events is that Beneficial had about one-fourth of its assets in securities containing subprime mortgages.
Existing contracts will be honored, although the company is expected to expire in about 50 years.
To repeat, the current policies are good and will be honored. It is just not going to be able to sell new policies.
Another victim of the subprime debacle has hit the skids. Beneficial Financial Group, a Mormon-owned company, declared it will have to stop issuing new life insurance and annuities by Oct. 31 of this year. It will put 150 people out of work promptly, and concedes it cannot compete against bigger companies offering more products.
The cause of this turn of events is that Beneficial had about one-fourth of its assets in securities containing subprime mortgages.
Existing contracts will be honored, although the company is expected to expire in about 50 years.
To repeat, the current policies are good and will be honored. It is just not going to be able to sell new policies.
Movement for Federal Controls of Insurance Industry Misguided
by L.A.S.
The federal government has seized on the problems with one segment of one company, AIG, as a pretext for more government control of the whole insurance industry. The truth is that the insurance division of AIG, American General, was doing just fine (and BTW was under state regulation). The problems were in the division that was already supposedly being supervised by the federals, the Financial Products Corp., which indulged in risky equities investment.
However, neither do I see any value in creating an optional federal charter, called an OFC. The OFC would give insurance companies the option of being regulated at the state or at the federal level. One must acknowledge that in some states, it is possible for the insurance commissioner's office to be much too cozy with the industry, and refrain from too close scrutiny of financial records or safety.
I have mixed feelings about this proposal, I admit. I have already opined on the frustration of not being able to buy certain riders or products in one state that are easily available in another state, simply because the insurance commissioner's office of one state decided to allow that product.
The Financial Regulatory Reform report strongly recommends the creation of an Office of National Insurance (ONI). One of the jobs proposed for this ONI is the identification of insurance companies that should be supervised as Tier 1 Financial Holding Companies (FHCs). A Tier 1 FHC is defined as a holding company “whose combination of size, leverage and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if [they] failed.” They would come under the supervision of the Federal Reserve who would supposedly hold them to a higher standard and do everything to prevent these companies from failing.
Insurers are expressing concern that the Fed would not be working in harness with an actual insurance regulator. This is in contrast with the rest of the financial services industry which has a federal regulator in the SEC. The Fed would not concern itself with solvency, but rather with the company's impact on the overall economy.
The Fed already has many critics of its authority. Does it really serve anyone's best interest to allow it to insert itself into another segment of the finance industry, when it already seems stretched to the limit in trying to monitor the banking industry?
Besides the creation of the ONI and an expansion of the Fed, the report is also spurring talk of creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This agency is supposedly going to represent consumer interests at the administrative level regarding credit, mortgage and title insurance coverage. Whether it will also monitor the insurance industry in spite of intense lobbying against it, is anyone's guess at the moment.
Again, I have mixed feelings about this new agency. Much depends on exactly who will be appointed to serve in this agency and whether they will just be another shill for the industry. The devil is always in the details.
On the one hand, it has the potential to finally bring the credit industry to heel and cap interest rates on credit cards and other abuses. Have you never wondered why your credit card bills are always addressed to processing stations in Delaware and Dakota? That is because those states have no cap on credit card interest rates or any other meaningful regulation. It would also give consumers the option to buy new plain-vanilla insurance products and provide transparent pricing.
On the other hand, adding another layer of bureaucracy because the regulators we have, failed to do their job, is hardly cost-efficient. It is hardly an example of good government. Although if the Congress writes the bill so as to streamline (make that read 'fire') ineffective federal agencies like the SEC or FINRA (the SEC's enforcement arm) or the Federal Reserve itself, then that would be a net gain for consumer rights and for the bean-counters.
If any or all of the existing agencies had been doing their job, and regulating the finance and investment community, we might have averted the bloodbath of last summer and fall. How did earlier administrations allow the annulment of the Glass-Steagall rules? Rules that had prevented a recurrence of the errors and wild ways of the heady 1920's?
And then there is the really scary problem that is not addressed by any legislation anywhere, and that is that most of the people working for the federal government just cannot understand the complicated financial instruments now being used and marketed across the globe. What if Congress convened a hearing or an investigation into bank failures, and the crooks got off because our representatives really don't know a bundled mortgage from a certificate of deposit? Or an ARM from their leg??
Sorry to joke, but tragically, the American public does not generally have senators and representatives who can fathom the technical jargon of the industry. It is not that they are dumb; they are just in the dark. As are we all.
The federal government has seized on the problems with one segment of one company, AIG, as a pretext for more government control of the whole insurance industry. The truth is that the insurance division of AIG, American General, was doing just fine (and BTW was under state regulation). The problems were in the division that was already supposedly being supervised by the federals, the Financial Products Corp., which indulged in risky equities investment.
However, neither do I see any value in creating an optional federal charter, called an OFC. The OFC would give insurance companies the option of being regulated at the state or at the federal level. One must acknowledge that in some states, it is possible for the insurance commissioner's office to be much too cozy with the industry, and refrain from too close scrutiny of financial records or safety.
I have mixed feelings about this proposal, I admit. I have already opined on the frustration of not being able to buy certain riders or products in one state that are easily available in another state, simply because the insurance commissioner's office of one state decided to allow that product.
The Financial Regulatory Reform report strongly recommends the creation of an Office of National Insurance (ONI). One of the jobs proposed for this ONI is the identification of insurance companies that should be supervised as Tier 1 Financial Holding Companies (FHCs). A Tier 1 FHC is defined as a holding company “whose combination of size, leverage and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if [they] failed.” They would come under the supervision of the Federal Reserve who would supposedly hold them to a higher standard and do everything to prevent these companies from failing.
Insurers are expressing concern that the Fed would not be working in harness with an actual insurance regulator. This is in contrast with the rest of the financial services industry which has a federal regulator in the SEC. The Fed would not concern itself with solvency, but rather with the company's impact on the overall economy.
The Fed already has many critics of its authority. Does it really serve anyone's best interest to allow it to insert itself into another segment of the finance industry, when it already seems stretched to the limit in trying to monitor the banking industry?
Besides the creation of the ONI and an expansion of the Fed, the report is also spurring talk of creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This agency is supposedly going to represent consumer interests at the administrative level regarding credit, mortgage and title insurance coverage. Whether it will also monitor the insurance industry in spite of intense lobbying against it, is anyone's guess at the moment.
Again, I have mixed feelings about this new agency. Much depends on exactly who will be appointed to serve in this agency and whether they will just be another shill for the industry. The devil is always in the details.
On the one hand, it has the potential to finally bring the credit industry to heel and cap interest rates on credit cards and other abuses. Have you never wondered why your credit card bills are always addressed to processing stations in Delaware and Dakota? That is because those states have no cap on credit card interest rates or any other meaningful regulation. It would also give consumers the option to buy new plain-vanilla insurance products and provide transparent pricing.
On the other hand, adding another layer of bureaucracy because the regulators we have, failed to do their job, is hardly cost-efficient. It is hardly an example of good government. Although if the Congress writes the bill so as to streamline (make that read 'fire') ineffective federal agencies like the SEC or FINRA (the SEC's enforcement arm) or the Federal Reserve itself, then that would be a net gain for consumer rights and for the bean-counters.
If any or all of the existing agencies had been doing their job, and regulating the finance and investment community, we might have averted the bloodbath of last summer and fall. How did earlier administrations allow the annulment of the Glass-Steagall rules? Rules that had prevented a recurrence of the errors and wild ways of the heady 1920's?
And then there is the really scary problem that is not addressed by any legislation anywhere, and that is that most of the people working for the federal government just cannot understand the complicated financial instruments now being used and marketed across the globe. What if Congress convened a hearing or an investigation into bank failures, and the crooks got off because our representatives really don't know a bundled mortgage from a certificate of deposit? Or an ARM from their leg??
Sorry to joke, but tragically, the American public does not generally have senators and representatives who can fathom the technical jargon of the industry. It is not that they are dumb; they are just in the dark. As are we all.
Texas Liquidating Memorial Life Insurance
by L.A.S.
Better check the name on that pre-need funeral policy of yours -- if you bought it from Memorial Life Insurance, it is now being liquidated by the state of Texas. Memorial Life Insurance sold funeral benefit contracts. After suffering a net loss of $2.3 million in 2008, the company was barred from accepting any more applications.
Fortunately your loss is protected under the Texas Life, Accident, Health and Hospital Service Insurance Guaranty Association Act. You must keep up the payments to maintain the policy in force, but check with the State of Texas insurance commissioner's office to see how to make out your checks.
Better check the name on that pre-need funeral policy of yours -- if you bought it from Memorial Life Insurance, it is now being liquidated by the state of Texas. Memorial Life Insurance sold funeral benefit contracts. After suffering a net loss of $2.3 million in 2008, the company was barred from accepting any more applications.
Fortunately your loss is protected under the Texas Life, Accident, Health and Hospital Service Insurance Guaranty Association Act. You must keep up the payments to maintain the policy in force, but check with the State of Texas insurance commissioner's office to see how to make out your checks.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Ameritas Fined by Financial Industry Authority (FINRA)
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined Ameritas in a case in which one of its brokers convinced customers to borrow against their homes to buy life insurance.
FINRA took action against Ameritas for failing to adequately oversee New Jersey broker Nancy Ziering. She convinced customers to borrow against their homes in order to buy variable universal life insurance policies to fund college or retirement expenses. The company was fined $100,000.
FINRA issued a statement in which it said that customers should not put their homes at risk in order to buy securities. Ziering recruited customers in seminars and other college-planning presentations. She sold at least 90 variable universal life policies through Ameritas. FINRA feels that the plans she presented were much too complicated and required customers to adhere to strict plans for 20 years.
Ameritas had already rescinded such policies issued to six customers before the disciplinary action.
FINRA took action against Ameritas for failing to adequately oversee New Jersey broker Nancy Ziering. She convinced customers to borrow against their homes in order to buy variable universal life insurance policies to fund college or retirement expenses. The company was fined $100,000.
FINRA issued a statement in which it said that customers should not put their homes at risk in order to buy securities. Ziering recruited customers in seminars and other college-planning presentations. She sold at least 90 variable universal life policies through Ameritas. FINRA feels that the plans she presented were much too complicated and required customers to adhere to strict plans for 20 years.
Ameritas had already rescinded such policies issued to six customers before the disciplinary action.
Ohio Advisors Busted by SEC for Inflating Fees
The SEC charged two Ohio-based investment advisors with fees-related fraud. The two advisors, Robert Pinkas and Tab Keplinger, of Brantley Capital Management (which was also charged), with overstating the value of the investment portfolio so they could charge higher fees.
Two failing private companies unfortunately made up more than half of the investment portfolio of BCM, an investment company based in New York.
The investment period in question was from 2002 to 2005. Pinkas was CEO of both Brantley and BCM. Keplinger was the part-time CFO of both companies.
Pinkas has engaged an attorney to fight the charges, while Keplinger has settled the charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He consented to a fine with a five-year ban on serving as an officer or director of a public company.
Two failing private companies unfortunately made up more than half of the investment portfolio of BCM, an investment company based in New York.
The investment period in question was from 2002 to 2005. Pinkas was CEO of both Brantley and BCM. Keplinger was the part-time CFO of both companies.
Pinkas has engaged an attorney to fight the charges, while Keplinger has settled the charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He consented to a fine with a five-year ban on serving as an officer or director of a public company.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Health Co-ops Are Making Medicine Fun Again
by L.A.S.
Another option when it comes to dispensing health care is the health co-op, where the patient members are in control of the entity.
One example is the Group Health Cooperative in Oregon. It was created way back in 1947 by farmers and loggers who pooled their resources to cover the most basic primary care. Since that time, the co-op has grown to over a half million members, the third largest insurer in Oregon.
It operates similar to an HMO. It has premiums and co-pays. Patients have to see providers who are in the network. Doctors work for the company and are paid a salary. This means they are not forced to cram twenty or more patients into their daily schedules.
They have more time with each patient and can be more proactive.
One of the great features of the Oregon co-op is that they have invested in electronic medical records which reduces errors, enables doctors to coordinate care, and also lets patients check their charts online. Whether it was this innovation or the emphasis on primary care, the result has been a drop in emergency room costs by 29 percent.
But replicating the success of Group Health is a real challenge. Many health care co-ops were born in the Great Depression and folded later when government funding was withdrawn.
However, HHS Cabinet Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has signaled that the Obama administration might support the idea of co-ops as an option to reduce the cost of health care.
It is an option worth serious consideration, even with all the challenges of starting one from the ground up.
An article on health co-ops ran in USA Today and you may read it here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-08-20-group-health-insurance_N.htm
Another option when it comes to dispensing health care is the health co-op, where the patient members are in control of the entity.
One example is the Group Health Cooperative in Oregon. It was created way back in 1947 by farmers and loggers who pooled their resources to cover the most basic primary care. Since that time, the co-op has grown to over a half million members, the third largest insurer in Oregon.
It operates similar to an HMO. It has premiums and co-pays. Patients have to see providers who are in the network. Doctors work for the company and are paid a salary. This means they are not forced to cram twenty or more patients into their daily schedules.
They have more time with each patient and can be more proactive.
One of the great features of the Oregon co-op is that they have invested in electronic medical records which reduces errors, enables doctors to coordinate care, and also lets patients check their charts online. Whether it was this innovation or the emphasis on primary care, the result has been a drop in emergency room costs by 29 percent.
But replicating the success of Group Health is a real challenge. Many health care co-ops were born in the Great Depression and folded later when government funding was withdrawn.
However, HHS Cabinet Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has signaled that the Obama administration might support the idea of co-ops as an option to reduce the cost of health care.
It is an option worth serious consideration, even with all the challenges of starting one from the ground up.
An article on health co-ops ran in USA Today and you may read it here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-08-20-group-health-insurance_N.htm
Five Reasons You Need Health Insurance
by L.A.S.
I came across this list the other day and it is a good reminder of why people benefit from having some form of health insurance. With all the hoopla over Obama-care or public option or any of the other forms of health insurance, we may need to step back a second and remind ourselves why we need it.
Number One on the list is that having insurance improves your access to quality care. I am embarrassed to have to list this item. To me it is shameful that in the richest country on earth, you are looked at as if you were a bank robber if you walk into a clinic or hospital without insurance. But there it is. And don't tell me that anyone can get health care if they are willing to pay the price. I have been turned away from local providers (years ago) because the clinic was not accepting patients without insurance.
Number Two: You get better access to preventive care. This is a biggie for those with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes, because good monitoring of your condition can keep you out of the hospital with serious complications! The flip side is that people are not getting access to information to help them stay healthy. The doctors are so rushed that he has no time to do much more than write another prescription. You have to pester the nurses or get to work digging up information from online, or from support groups, or from nutritionists, or from health food centers.
Number Three: It can keep you from facing financial ruin due to medical expenses. While some people still have to deal with financial hardship if their treatment is out of network or not covered, insurance is the best bet against losing one's home or savings.
Number Four: You pay a lower rate. The insurance plan negotiates a better rate for services, lab tests, and hospital beds under group coverage. The truth is, those without insurance usually are charged the top-gouge price.
Number Five: Peace of mind -- aka being able to sleep at night. It is hard enough to handle your health worries without also having the weight of the final bills on your mind. Just concentrate on getting well and let the providers and insurers handle the bills.
-- Best wishes to all
I came across this list the other day and it is a good reminder of why people benefit from having some form of health insurance. With all the hoopla over Obama-care or public option or any of the other forms of health insurance, we may need to step back a second and remind ourselves why we need it.
Number One on the list is that having insurance improves your access to quality care. I am embarrassed to have to list this item. To me it is shameful that in the richest country on earth, you are looked at as if you were a bank robber if you walk into a clinic or hospital without insurance. But there it is. And don't tell me that anyone can get health care if they are willing to pay the price. I have been turned away from local providers (years ago) because the clinic was not accepting patients without insurance.
Number Two: You get better access to preventive care. This is a biggie for those with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes, because good monitoring of your condition can keep you out of the hospital with serious complications! The flip side is that people are not getting access to information to help them stay healthy. The doctors are so rushed that he has no time to do much more than write another prescription. You have to pester the nurses or get to work digging up information from online, or from support groups, or from nutritionists, or from health food centers.
Number Three: It can keep you from facing financial ruin due to medical expenses. While some people still have to deal with financial hardship if their treatment is out of network or not covered, insurance is the best bet against losing one's home or savings.
Number Four: You pay a lower rate. The insurance plan negotiates a better rate for services, lab tests, and hospital beds under group coverage. The truth is, those without insurance usually are charged the top-gouge price.
Number Five: Peace of mind -- aka being able to sleep at night. It is hard enough to handle your health worries without also having the weight of the final bills on your mind. Just concentrate on getting well and let the providers and insurers handle the bills.
-- Best wishes to all
Patient Recounts 'Death Panel' Experiences in 2007
by L.A.S.
It may shock you to know that there really have been so-called 'death panels' employed to triage organ transplant cases. One patient who went through what must have been a draining experience wrote about it on another blogspot blog called Southeast to Southwest (at swse.blogspot.com).
Death panels, aka God committees, have to evaluate the patient's chances for a good outcome for the terribly expensive organ transplant surgery. It is a fact of life that there are not enough organs to go around, and we really ought to push for more of us to volunteer usable organs upon our passing so that another can live.
The whole fascinating, engrossing account can be read here at: http://sesw.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-went-before-real-death-panel.html
It may shock you to know that there really have been so-called 'death panels' employed to triage organ transplant cases. One patient who went through what must have been a draining experience wrote about it on another blogspot blog called Southeast to Southwest (at swse.blogspot.com).
Death panels, aka God committees, have to evaluate the patient's chances for a good outcome for the terribly expensive organ transplant surgery. It is a fact of life that there are not enough organs to go around, and we really ought to push for more of us to volunteer usable organs upon our passing so that another can live.
The whole fascinating, engrossing account can be read here at: http://sesw.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-went-before-real-death-panel.html
Whistleblower Leads to $302 Million Fine Against Quest Diagnostics
(by L.A.S)
(Not sure if I ever referred to this case before, but it bears repeating anyway.)
The New York Times reported in April of this year that Quest will pay a fine of $302 million as a result of a defective test kit produced by its subsidiary, NID. NID produced a kit that was supposed to detect levels of parathyroid hormone. However, the kit produced such inaccurate and unreliable lab results, that doctors complained.
Shockingly, there are no standards regarding how reliable a lab test has to be, nor testing to ensure that it is reliable. To put it another way, there is no standardization and no FDA approval needed.
A California businessman and biochemist named Thomas Cantor tried to blow the whistle with detailed complaints about the test, but was rebuffed. He later hired some attorneys to help him.
Cantor will receive a share of the settlement amounting to about $45 million, which he states he intends to donate to drug research.
The NY Times article is here: www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/business/16tests.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
(Not sure if I ever referred to this case before, but it bears repeating anyway.)
The New York Times reported in April of this year that Quest will pay a fine of $302 million as a result of a defective test kit produced by its subsidiary, NID. NID produced a kit that was supposed to detect levels of parathyroid hormone. However, the kit produced such inaccurate and unreliable lab results, that doctors complained.
Shockingly, there are no standards regarding how reliable a lab test has to be, nor testing to ensure that it is reliable. To put it another way, there is no standardization and no FDA approval needed.
A California businessman and biochemist named Thomas Cantor tried to blow the whistle with detailed complaints about the test, but was rebuffed. He later hired some attorneys to help him.
Cantor will receive a share of the settlement amounting to about $45 million, which he states he intends to donate to drug research.
The NY Times article is here: www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/business/16tests.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Ohio broker barred after stealing sisters' inheritance
Richard Wood, an agent in Miamisburg, Ohio who was with American General Securities Inc., promised to invest two sisters' money but used the funds for himself.
The sisters were beneficiaries of an aunt who had been a client of Wood. Wood provided both sisters with a false account number for a fake brokerage account. He was eventually found out, and forced to repay one of the sisters. The firm repaid the other sister.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred Wood in an agreement in which Wood did not have to admit or deny the allegations.
Lucky for the sisters, they have their money back.
The sisters were beneficiaries of an aunt who had been a client of Wood. Wood provided both sisters with a false account number for a fake brokerage account. He was eventually found out, and forced to repay one of the sisters. The firm repaid the other sister.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred Wood in an agreement in which Wood did not have to admit or deny the allegations.
Lucky for the sisters, they have their money back.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Truth Comes Out About Insurers Fighting National Healthcare for Years
The truth has come out at last about how the big insurers mounted large campaigns to defeat previous attempts to institute a national healthcare plan. If you have not seen or read Bill Moyers' interview with Wendell Potter, a former exec with Cigna health care, then go there now.
Mr. Potter tells of how he finally had an epiphany in mid-2007, after years of working for Cigna. "I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this. But it really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans."
He heard about a health care expedition that was being held down the road, while he visited relatives back in Wise, Virginia. He decided to go there, and take pictures. He had no idea what he would see, but he had a vague idea that it would be a public clinic for people without insurance.
What he saw were people being treated in animal stalls at a Wise County Fairground. Some patients were on gurneys. People had come from miles around, from Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee. "There could have been people and probably were people that I had grown up with. They could have been people who grew up at the house down the road, in the house down the road from me. And that made it real to me. It was absolutely stunning. It was like being hit by lightning. It was almost-- what country am I in? I just it just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States. It was like a lightning bolt had hit me."
Nevertheless, Potter did not know what to do about the fact that real human beings had no health care access.
Potter also related what happened when the film "Sicko", by Michael Moore, came out. He saw the film himself and felt that Moore was pretty accurate in depicting the situation as it really is. However, he participated in the industry effort to dampen political reaction to the film for fear that it would fuel a real effort to institute a national health care plan.
(from the interview)
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."
BILL MOYERS: How?
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
This is the truth about why, in spite of poll after poll that shows the majority of Americans favor a national healthcare program, we still have none and Europe and other countries have had national healthcare for nearly a century.
The full story and links to more is at Moyers' PBS website, at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
You can also view Wendel Potter's congressional testimony online or read the text. At Commerce Dept. site on dot gov: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=6f02dcc8-ad5b-445c-81ca-36c9b06ebdd5
In addition, the Frank Lutz memo strategizing opposition to health care reform Bill Moyers mentions in the interview. -- RAN in Politico: www.politico.com/static/PPM116_luntz.html
Mr. Potter tells of how he finally had an epiphany in mid-2007, after years of working for Cigna. "I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this. But it really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans."
He heard about a health care expedition that was being held down the road, while he visited relatives back in Wise, Virginia. He decided to go there, and take pictures. He had no idea what he would see, but he had a vague idea that it would be a public clinic for people without insurance.
What he saw were people being treated in animal stalls at a Wise County Fairground. Some patients were on gurneys. People had come from miles around, from Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee. "There could have been people and probably were people that I had grown up with. They could have been people who grew up at the house down the road, in the house down the road from me. And that made it real to me. It was absolutely stunning. It was like being hit by lightning. It was almost-- what country am I in? I just it just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States. It was like a lightning bolt had hit me."
Nevertheless, Potter did not know what to do about the fact that real human beings had no health care access.
Potter also related what happened when the film "Sicko", by Michael Moore, came out. He saw the film himself and felt that Moore was pretty accurate in depicting the situation as it really is. However, he participated in the industry effort to dampen political reaction to the film for fear that it would fuel a real effort to institute a national health care plan.
(from the interview)
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."
BILL MOYERS: How?
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
This is the truth about why, in spite of poll after poll that shows the majority of Americans favor a national healthcare program, we still have none and Europe and other countries have had national healthcare for nearly a century.
The full story and links to more is at Moyers' PBS website, at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
You can also view Wendel Potter's congressional testimony online or read the text. At Commerce Dept. site on dot gov: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=6f02dcc8-ad5b-445c-81ca-36c9b06ebdd5
In addition, the Frank Lutz memo strategizing opposition to health care reform Bill Moyers mentions in the interview. -- RAN in Politico: www.politico.com/static/PPM116_luntz.html
Kucinich Supports Single-Payer Plan
by L.A.S.
With all the news coming out of Washington this week regarding Obama's national health care proposal, it is difficult to focus on just one or two threads for an article or discussion. But one major thread is that Dennis Kucinich is again taking the lead regarding national healthcare, and has come out in support of a single-payer plan.
The alternative news site AlterNet has been very enthusiastic about his version of healthcare reform. You may read their article here: www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/141404/how_dennis_kucinich_may_save_the_health_reform_battle/
Kucinich would allow states to create their own single-payer programs. This is a positive step. However, in the current economic climate, I doubt that many states are in any shape to start up a new public benefit program. Some states, like California, are dropping eligible people from the public healthcare programs that they already have.
Perhaps Obama's plan is meant merely as a transitional phase from the present multi-payer, all-private (except for Medicare) situation to a true single-payer plan such as one finds in many European countries and Canada. I could live with that, but I think that the insurance companies are bound and determined to avoid covering the people that they do not want: those who have pre-existing conditions, and those who run up large bills.
We saw when Medicare first was rolled out as a result of the President Johnson initiative under his "Great Society" programs, that the insurance companies could not dump the seniors fast enough. In fact, they terminated policyholders even before they had been formally enrolled into Medicare! Let us hope that someone has thought to insert verbiage to prevent a similar fiasco this time around.
One approach to reducing the cost of medical care that is not used enough is to manage cases for improved drug therapy (and other management of chronic conditions) so that patients spend fewer days in the hospital. This requires a progressive attitude!
One may read a rather long article on the Nursing Center website about interventions with high-risk or at-risk families on Medicaid, or on a public health plan in other countries. Typically, visiting nurses make regular home visits and help to educate parents and monitor the progress of children in the studies. Overall, such intervention returns about $17,000 per family in the program (they take into account not only hospitalizations that have been avoided, but also crime and domestic violence, and other costs to society: "Cost-benefit analysis of the NFP reveals that there is a $17000 return to society for each family served by the program.13 These benefits were calculated on the basis of the program's impact on societal outcomes such as crime, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse and neglect, and domestic violence.")
Let's hope that such relatively low-cost interventions will be the norm, and produce better management of childhood asthma and other chronic conditions.
With all the news coming out of Washington this week regarding Obama's national health care proposal, it is difficult to focus on just one or two threads for an article or discussion. But one major thread is that Dennis Kucinich is again taking the lead regarding national healthcare, and has come out in support of a single-payer plan.
The alternative news site AlterNet has been very enthusiastic about his version of healthcare reform. You may read their article here: www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/141404/how_dennis_kucinich_may_save_the_health_reform_battle/
Kucinich would allow states to create their own single-payer programs. This is a positive step. However, in the current economic climate, I doubt that many states are in any shape to start up a new public benefit program. Some states, like California, are dropping eligible people from the public healthcare programs that they already have.
Perhaps Obama's plan is meant merely as a transitional phase from the present multi-payer, all-private (except for Medicare) situation to a true single-payer plan such as one finds in many European countries and Canada. I could live with that, but I think that the insurance companies are bound and determined to avoid covering the people that they do not want: those who have pre-existing conditions, and those who run up large bills.
We saw when Medicare first was rolled out as a result of the President Johnson initiative under his "Great Society" programs, that the insurance companies could not dump the seniors fast enough. In fact, they terminated policyholders even before they had been formally enrolled into Medicare! Let us hope that someone has thought to insert verbiage to prevent a similar fiasco this time around.
One approach to reducing the cost of medical care that is not used enough is to manage cases for improved drug therapy (and other management of chronic conditions) so that patients spend fewer days in the hospital. This requires a progressive attitude!
One may read a rather long article on the Nursing Center website about interventions with high-risk or at-risk families on Medicaid, or on a public health plan in other countries. Typically, visiting nurses make regular home visits and help to educate parents and monitor the progress of children in the studies. Overall, such intervention returns about $17,000 per family in the program (they take into account not only hospitalizations that have been avoided, but also crime and domestic violence, and other costs to society: "Cost-benefit analysis of the NFP reveals that there is a $17000 return to society for each family served by the program.13 These benefits were calculated on the basis of the program's impact on societal outcomes such as crime, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse and neglect, and domestic violence.")
Let's hope that such relatively low-cost interventions will be the norm, and produce better management of childhood asthma and other chronic conditions.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sorry to Dump So Much On You at One Time
by L.A.S.
I apologize for dumping so much in your laps all at once. I have been trying to catch up a bit on my backlog of stories I wanted to pass along to you -- and this has led to posting SEVEN articles all in one day on this blog. Sorry about that. But you at least have the luxury of clipping or bookmarking this site so you can come back and mull over all these tidbits at your convenience.
Have a wonderful -- and safe -- Fourth of July weekend!
I apologize for dumping so much in your laps all at once. I have been trying to catch up a bit on my backlog of stories I wanted to pass along to you -- and this has led to posting SEVEN articles all in one day on this blog. Sorry about that. But you at least have the luxury of clipping or bookmarking this site so you can come back and mull over all these tidbits at your convenience.
Have a wonderful -- and safe -- Fourth of July weekend!
Texas Proposes Regulation of Annuity Schemes Aimed at Seniors
by L.A.S.
Texas bill HB 961 and SB 2650 would regulate maturity dates on all annuities sold to seniors. No longer can insurers set the maturity date as high as 115. Such unreasonable maturity dates force beneficiaries to pay high surrender charges in order to settle an estate.
The bill would also allow the Texas Department of Insurance to investigate any pattern of conduct by carriers that may violate this regulation, and empower the agency to issue 'cease and desist' orders.
Texas bill HB 961 and SB 2650 would regulate maturity dates on all annuities sold to seniors. No longer can insurers set the maturity date as high as 115. Such unreasonable maturity dates force beneficiaries to pay high surrender charges in order to settle an estate.
The bill would also allow the Texas Department of Insurance to investigate any pattern of conduct by carriers that may violate this regulation, and empower the agency to issue 'cease and desist' orders.
Florida Bill Regulating Annuities Dies in Committee
by L.A.S.
A proposed bill that would require annuities sold to seniors to provide a 60-day “free-look” period died in committee. The bill was labeled SB 724 with the companion House bill labeled HB 141.
Even though the billed died in this session of the state congress, it could be resurrected in the next legislative session.
Provisions of the bill include not only the above clause, but also: would allow return premiums on said annuity sale for 60 days after purchase; no surrender charges after the fifth year of an annuity contract; bars family members of an insurance agent from being beneficiaries of an insurance policy.
The bill also would tighten standards of conduct for insurance agents by: expanding grounds for suspension or revocation of a license; in cases of “twisting” or “churning” of policies belonging to clients age 65 or more, such practices would become third degree felonies.
A proposed bill that would require annuities sold to seniors to provide a 60-day “free-look” period died in committee. The bill was labeled SB 724 with the companion House bill labeled HB 141.
Even though the billed died in this session of the state congress, it could be resurrected in the next legislative session.
Provisions of the bill include not only the above clause, but also: would allow return premiums on said annuity sale for 60 days after purchase; no surrender charges after the fifth year of an annuity contract; bars family members of an insurance agent from being beneficiaries of an insurance policy.
The bill also would tighten standards of conduct for insurance agents by: expanding grounds for suspension or revocation of a license; in cases of “twisting” or “churning” of policies belonging to clients age 65 or more, such practices would become third degree felonies.
Summer is the Time for Disabling Injuries
by L.A.S.
More disabling injuries occur during the summer than any other time of the year, according to a study by The Hartford insurance company's research department.
Accident claims were lowest, in general, in the fall of the year. They climb slightly in the winter quarter and begin to soar in the spring. Summer is by far the busiest period for accident claims, and the most common type of injury was the fracture for both men and women.
The most common injuries for men were: open wounds, internal injuries, sprained joints (shoulder, leg, knee, arm), and fractures (skull, neck, back). The most common injuries for women were: Fractures of lower limb, sprained neck or back, and dislocated knees.
Taking a look at different regions of the country provided some puzzling results. One might expect that skiing accidents would be the main cause of accident claims out West, but winter and fall both had very low accident rates compared to a rising slope for spring and summer accident rates. The Northeast had this pattern of accident rates, going from highest to lowest accident rates: summer, winter, spring, fall. I suppose that people drove themselves too hard in summer sports, and fell on the ice in the winter.
But Midwesterners had virtually the same accident rate for winter as for spring. Fall had the fewest accidents, while summer again was significantly higher; in fact, Midwesterners had the highest rate of summer accidents of all the four regions. The South had the fewest accidents in the winter of all regions, but nearly tied with the West in high spring accident rates, and was second-highest in summer accident rates.
But the main question is: how many months could you go without having any income? How soon would you have to make lifestyle changes if you or your spouse lost their income? Almost all respondents said they would have to change their lifestyle if they or their spouses lost income for three to six months. Only 41 percent had short-term disability insurance, and only 36 percent had long-term disability insurance.
A caveat: disability insurances only pay about 60 percent of your pre-disability income, so plan accordingly. Also, that 60 percent is based on your BASE salary, not including whatever overtime or bonuses you have been earning. Have a reserve fund for emergencies, and/or a source of income that keeps coming in regardless of whether you can get out the door or not.
More disabling injuries occur during the summer than any other time of the year, according to a study by The Hartford insurance company's research department.
Accident claims were lowest, in general, in the fall of the year. They climb slightly in the winter quarter and begin to soar in the spring. Summer is by far the busiest period for accident claims, and the most common type of injury was the fracture for both men and women.
The most common injuries for men were: open wounds, internal injuries, sprained joints (shoulder, leg, knee, arm), and fractures (skull, neck, back). The most common injuries for women were: Fractures of lower limb, sprained neck or back, and dislocated knees.
Taking a look at different regions of the country provided some puzzling results. One might expect that skiing accidents would be the main cause of accident claims out West, but winter and fall both had very low accident rates compared to a rising slope for spring and summer accident rates. The Northeast had this pattern of accident rates, going from highest to lowest accident rates: summer, winter, spring, fall. I suppose that people drove themselves too hard in summer sports, and fell on the ice in the winter.
But Midwesterners had virtually the same accident rate for winter as for spring. Fall had the fewest accidents, while summer again was significantly higher; in fact, Midwesterners had the highest rate of summer accidents of all the four regions. The South had the fewest accidents in the winter of all regions, but nearly tied with the West in high spring accident rates, and was second-highest in summer accident rates.
But the main question is: how many months could you go without having any income? How soon would you have to make lifestyle changes if you or your spouse lost their income? Almost all respondents said they would have to change their lifestyle if they or their spouses lost income for three to six months. Only 41 percent had short-term disability insurance, and only 36 percent had long-term disability insurance.
A caveat: disability insurances only pay about 60 percent of your pre-disability income, so plan accordingly. Also, that 60 percent is based on your BASE salary, not including whatever overtime or bonuses you have been earning. Have a reserve fund for emergencies, and/or a source of income that keeps coming in regardless of whether you can get out the door or not.
Seniors Will Have Fewer Agents Calling and Knocking
by L.A.S.
Revised rules governing marketing to seniors have put a crimp on cold calls by insurance agents. No longer may insurers call or knock on doors of seniors who are not already policyholders with their company. That includes a ban on calling former policyholders and referred prospects.
This will make it harder for people just turning 65 to find and compare different supplemental plans. However, since 64 percent of seniors already go online to compare and research insurances, that avenue will only grow.
Insurers will need to provide senior-friendly web sites that allow visitors to choose their type size and increase contrast. The web site should also give you a way to request more information, such as a request form online to receive a packet of Medicare-supplemental information brochures or booklets.
It makes for a kinder and gentler selling and buying environment.
Revised rules governing marketing to seniors have put a crimp on cold calls by insurance agents. No longer may insurers call or knock on doors of seniors who are not already policyholders with their company. That includes a ban on calling former policyholders and referred prospects.
This will make it harder for people just turning 65 to find and compare different supplemental plans. However, since 64 percent of seniors already go online to compare and research insurances, that avenue will only grow.
Insurers will need to provide senior-friendly web sites that allow visitors to choose their type size and increase contrast. The web site should also give you a way to request more information, such as a request form online to receive a packet of Medicare-supplemental information brochures or booklets.
It makes for a kinder and gentler selling and buying environment.
It Pays to Take ALL Your Meds to Dr. for Review
by L.A.S.
It just goes to show that an annual review of all your medications can save your life and keep you out of the emergency room.
Premera Blue Cross sponsored what they called a “Polypharmacy” program. They encouraged policyholders to put all their medications in a brown bag and take them to their primary physician for review.
What was the result of this review program? Emergency room visits and hospitalizations decreased among those who took part in the program.
Many patients are taking two forms of a same drug under different brand names, and never realize it. With all your medications in one place for review, physicians can spot duplication and other errors that could lead to serious health complications. Do it this month and live better!
It just goes to show that an annual review of all your medications can save your life and keep you out of the emergency room.
Premera Blue Cross sponsored what they called a “Polypharmacy” program. They encouraged policyholders to put all their medications in a brown bag and take them to their primary physician for review.
What was the result of this review program? Emergency room visits and hospitalizations decreased among those who took part in the program.
Many patients are taking two forms of a same drug under different brand names, and never realize it. With all your medications in one place for review, physicians can spot duplication and other errors that could lead to serious health complications. Do it this month and live better!
Class-Action Suit Fines Insurers for Concealing LTC Increases
BY L.A.S.
Three companies were fined for concealing planned rate increases on long-term care policies in the state of Missouri. The companies were: Mutual of Omaha, American Heritage Life, and Wakely & Associates (a third-party administrator).
Under the court settlement of the class-action suit, Mutual of Omaha will have to maintain benefits on current policies with a value of $8.5 million. American Heritage will have to provide benefits to lapsed policies valued at $2.5 million. Wakely has paid a $4 million fine.
Wakely had helped American Heritage with the design, marketing and sale of the long-term care policies.
Those affected included 1670 people in Missouri who bought long-term care insurance policies between 1995 and 2000.
Three companies were fined for concealing planned rate increases on long-term care policies in the state of Missouri. The companies were: Mutual of Omaha, American Heritage Life, and Wakely & Associates (a third-party administrator).
Under the court settlement of the class-action suit, Mutual of Omaha will have to maintain benefits on current policies with a value of $8.5 million. American Heritage will have to provide benefits to lapsed policies valued at $2.5 million. Wakely has paid a $4 million fine.
Wakely had helped American Heritage with the design, marketing and sale of the long-term care policies.
Those affected included 1670 people in Missouri who bought long-term care insurance policies between 1995 and 2000.
Have You Looked into Indexed Universal Life Yet? It Offers Safety and Good Returns
by L.A.S.
Many Boomers, discouraged by their investment returns after the debacles of the 1990s and 2008, have checked into the indexed universal life insurance.
Boomers, stung by hard losses in previous stock market downturns, have found one likely candidate for safe investing. Indexed universal life insurance offers the investor the ability to lock in gains during the good years, and protection of your account during the bad years.
Indexed universal life offers a zero percent floor, meaning you will not lose your principal even if the market goes bad. This provides preservation of capital. The only drawback is the the investor has fewer investment options than with other forms of variable universal life, but for many of us, simpler is better. Owners of these policies can sleep better at night, too.
More than 50 percent of the sales of this product are to Boomers. They trade off not receiving dividends for their participation in the plan.
Other types of investment vehicles that have seen increased sales are fixed annuities and multiyear-guarantee (aka CD-type annuities).
Insurance carriers have guidelines regarding the suitability of annuities for a client. The parameters include: age 40 or more, has considered alternative investments, is appropriate for the client, has funds to sit in this account for an extended period, has sufficient liquidity so that he or she will not have to dip into their annuity for the foreseeable future, and maintains at least 20 percent of their net worth for immediate needs and emergency funds.
Many Boomers, discouraged by their investment returns after the debacles of the 1990s and 2008, have checked into the indexed universal life insurance.
Boomers, stung by hard losses in previous stock market downturns, have found one likely candidate for safe investing. Indexed universal life insurance offers the investor the ability to lock in gains during the good years, and protection of your account during the bad years.
Indexed universal life offers a zero percent floor, meaning you will not lose your principal even if the market goes bad. This provides preservation of capital. The only drawback is the the investor has fewer investment options than with other forms of variable universal life, but for many of us, simpler is better. Owners of these policies can sleep better at night, too.
More than 50 percent of the sales of this product are to Boomers. They trade off not receiving dividends for their participation in the plan.
Other types of investment vehicles that have seen increased sales are fixed annuities and multiyear-guarantee (aka CD-type annuities).
Insurance carriers have guidelines regarding the suitability of annuities for a client. The parameters include: age 40 or more, has considered alternative investments, is appropriate for the client, has funds to sit in this account for an extended period, has sufficient liquidity so that he or she will not have to dip into their annuity for the foreseeable future, and maintains at least 20 percent of their net worth for immediate needs and emergency funds.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A Must-Read from Mother Jones on Healthcare Proposal
Not as lengthy as some of the more important Mother Jones articles, but nevertheless it was very insightful.
Please click this link to an article titled: Congress's $1.2 Million a Day Drug Habit—and Pharma's Phony "Gift" to Health Care Reform at http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/pharmas-phony-gift-seniors
Many seniors on the Medicare Part D plan go on generics as they enter the "donut" phase of the plan -- and never go back onto the brand-name drugs after exiting the donut.
Under this proposed plan seniors may decide they are better off staying with the brand name drug through the whole year. Big Pharma will like that.
Please click this link to an article titled: Congress's $1.2 Million a Day Drug Habit—and Pharma's Phony "Gift" to Health Care Reform at http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/pharmas-phony-gift-seniors
Many seniors on the Medicare Part D plan go on generics as they enter the "donut" phase of the plan -- and never go back onto the brand-name drugs after exiting the donut.
Under this proposed plan seniors may decide they are better off staying with the brand name drug through the whole year. Big Pharma will like that.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Some States Already Refusing National Healthcare
Arizona is one state that has made it clear it wants no part of a national healthcare plan. It has refused other federal programs before, so this is not a sudden policy change.
EXCERPT: Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.
This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.
HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.
Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.
You may read the whole article at this forum page: http://usfreestar.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/26/2972841-arizona-hcr2012-national-health-care-nullification -- We has lots of good discussions on this site so you might want to browse awhile.
EXCERPT: Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.
This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.
HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.
Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.
You may read the whole article at this forum page: http://usfreestar.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/26/2972841-arizona-hcr2012-national-health-care-nullification -- We has lots of good discussions on this site so you might want to browse awhile.
How Would Your Life Be Different if We Had National Healthcare?
A provocative article ran recently in the pages of AlterNet regarding the writer's experience living in Canada for a while. Her five years in Canada were a real eye-opener in how a healthcare system could work, sparing people the economic drain of continual insurance and medical bills.
She wrote:
This was one of the things that struck me hardest when I arrived in Canada five years ago. The swamp-blindness was so dark and deep that it took a while to adjust to a world without alligators. It's almost impossible to describe to folks back home how different life is when health insurance simply doesn't factor at all into how you choose to live your life. There's almost no language for it. Rather than even attempt it, I sometimes just ask my American friends and relatives to open up their imaginations, and answer the question for themselves:
* How would your life be different if you never had to worry about getting, keeping, or affording health care again?
* What other choices might you have made?
* Where else would you be right now?
* How would it change your plans for the future?
You can read the whole article here at http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140918/what_did_you_sacrifice_to_afford_health_care_/?page=entire -- AlterNet is a wonderful website with many such interesting and provocative articles. I hope you like it.
She wrote:
This was one of the things that struck me hardest when I arrived in Canada five years ago. The swamp-blindness was so dark and deep that it took a while to adjust to a world without alligators. It's almost impossible to describe to folks back home how different life is when health insurance simply doesn't factor at all into how you choose to live your life. There's almost no language for it. Rather than even attempt it, I sometimes just ask my American friends and relatives to open up their imaginations, and answer the question for themselves:
* How would your life be different if you never had to worry about getting, keeping, or affording health care again?
* What other choices might you have made?
* Where else would you be right now?
* How would it change your plans for the future?
You can read the whole article here at http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140918/what_did_you_sacrifice_to_afford_health_care_/?page=entire -- AlterNet is a wonderful website with many such interesting and provocative articles. I hope you like it.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Annuities Have Become 'The New Black'
by L.A.S.
In 2008, to no one's surprise, investors, suddenly shifted funds into plain old boring fixed annuities. How many investors did this? Just to quote some startling stats that came out earlier this year, sales of fixed annuities in 2008 jumped to $107 billion, up nearly 60 percent over 2007.
We are talking about the most snore-inducing sector of the financial investment field, the fixed or fixed index annuity here. Perhaps the only item that qualifies as duller is the savings bond. Now normally, we are told to have a portion of our investments in safe instruments such as bonds or insurance, vehicles like that. And some of us actually do that.
But traditional diversification did not work for most of us in 2008. So that explains the rush to the safety of the fixed annuity. It is very simple to understand: you just toss a lump sum into the kitty and draw upon it to suit your needs. There are variations in how long a waiting period before you begin drawing on the annuity, and there are also some that allow you to deposit small sums during your working life in order to draw upon it in your retirement, just like an IRA or 401K.
But the deferred accounts are nice because the interest they accrue is tax free. The longer the deferred period, the better, of course, so that they can swell into very nice nest eggs indeed. The downside has always been that you had to accept a rather low rate of return in exchange for this level of boring safety. The other downside is a rather steep penalty for dipping into your fund in case of emergency.
Deferred annuities generally produce a 5 percent rate of return, while immediate annuities may give only about 3.5 percent. And because you are locking into just one company, you want to know for sure that the company is very strong. Everyone thought that AIG was too big to fail, to coin a phrase, but we found out differently.
There are several reputable insurance companies that have avoided the flash and the sizzle, and as a result are in very good financial shape today, even after the stock market bloodbath. Northwestern Mutual Life, headquartered in Milwaukee, is one. (I am not an agent of NML nor am I reimbursed in any way for mentioning them; but I am rather proud that they are based in my birthplace.)
In 2008, to no one's surprise, investors, suddenly shifted funds into plain old boring fixed annuities. How many investors did this? Just to quote some startling stats that came out earlier this year, sales of fixed annuities in 2008 jumped to $107 billion, up nearly 60 percent over 2007.
We are talking about the most snore-inducing sector of the financial investment field, the fixed or fixed index annuity here. Perhaps the only item that qualifies as duller is the savings bond. Now normally, we are told to have a portion of our investments in safe instruments such as bonds or insurance, vehicles like that. And some of us actually do that.
But traditional diversification did not work for most of us in 2008. So that explains the rush to the safety of the fixed annuity. It is very simple to understand: you just toss a lump sum into the kitty and draw upon it to suit your needs. There are variations in how long a waiting period before you begin drawing on the annuity, and there are also some that allow you to deposit small sums during your working life in order to draw upon it in your retirement, just like an IRA or 401K.
But the deferred accounts are nice because the interest they accrue is tax free. The longer the deferred period, the better, of course, so that they can swell into very nice nest eggs indeed. The downside has always been that you had to accept a rather low rate of return in exchange for this level of boring safety. The other downside is a rather steep penalty for dipping into your fund in case of emergency.
Deferred annuities generally produce a 5 percent rate of return, while immediate annuities may give only about 3.5 percent. And because you are locking into just one company, you want to know for sure that the company is very strong. Everyone thought that AIG was too big to fail, to coin a phrase, but we found out differently.
There are several reputable insurance companies that have avoided the flash and the sizzle, and as a result are in very good financial shape today, even after the stock market bloodbath. Northwestern Mutual Life, headquartered in Milwaukee, is one. (I am not an agent of NML nor am I reimbursed in any way for mentioning them; but I am rather proud that they are based in my birthplace.)
Another Scandal Looming for Big Banks, Financial Houses
by L.A.S.
Yet another scandal and heavy fines loom for the big banks and investment houses, this time due to investigations of tax cheating. The IRS has been bearing down on advisors who have helped the wealthy shelter money in offshore accounts. This is not breaking news but little attention has been paid to the financial consequences of the heavy IRS fines in such cases.
A recent case in which a former banker at UBS, the the Swiss bank, pleaded guilty last year to helping a client hide $200 million in an offshore account. The banker turned whistleblower and revealed that the bank holds billions of dollars for American customers in those secret Swiss bank accounts.
According to one source, there are roughly 52,000 suspected accounts; that is just the UBS accounts and there could be many thousands more with other banks such as Credit Suisse, HSBC, and others. It is difficult to imagine how the IRS might seek out so many cheats but their strategy is to offer amnesty to the depositors.
Depositors will still have to pay back taxes, otherwise they could eventually face five years in jail and fines of $100,000 or half of the amount in the foreign account (whichever is more).
Now, supposing the investment house failed to keep on file a form that properly advised the client (the depositor) that they have to file this account with the IRS. In that case, the investment house (or the advisor) faces being dragged into court and face similar jail time and fines for tax fraud.
How many such accounts are out there with American firms or at least American offices? How many of their American staffers stand in danger of being dragged into court and probably losing their licenses as financial advisors? And what will Wall Street make of those companies when the you-know-what finally hits the fan? It could get ugly out there.
The fact that even foreign stock exchanges are now highly correlated with the fortunes of the American stock exchanges is changing the axiom that there is safety in diversifying one's stock among domestic and foreign companies. You may have stock in some foreign banking interests without realizing it, just because you bought into global mutual funds, perhaps. The world markets and financial linkages are now so pervasive that nothing is isolated from general trends in the U.S. as it once was.
It is a difficult time to correctly evaluate the relative risks of mutual funds or any other foreign investments, so perhaps the right kind of diversification is between betting on the rising market and betting on the sinking market. People still have not quite recovered their confidence that times are getting better, in spite of a partial recovery of the Dow Jones.
Yet another scandal and heavy fines loom for the big banks and investment houses, this time due to investigations of tax cheating. The IRS has been bearing down on advisors who have helped the wealthy shelter money in offshore accounts. This is not breaking news but little attention has been paid to the financial consequences of the heavy IRS fines in such cases.
A recent case in which a former banker at UBS, the the Swiss bank, pleaded guilty last year to helping a client hide $200 million in an offshore account. The banker turned whistleblower and revealed that the bank holds billions of dollars for American customers in those secret Swiss bank accounts.
According to one source, there are roughly 52,000 suspected accounts; that is just the UBS accounts and there could be many thousands more with other banks such as Credit Suisse, HSBC, and others. It is difficult to imagine how the IRS might seek out so many cheats but their strategy is to offer amnesty to the depositors.
Depositors will still have to pay back taxes, otherwise they could eventually face five years in jail and fines of $100,000 or half of the amount in the foreign account (whichever is more).
Now, supposing the investment house failed to keep on file a form that properly advised the client (the depositor) that they have to file this account with the IRS. In that case, the investment house (or the advisor) faces being dragged into court and face similar jail time and fines for tax fraud.
How many such accounts are out there with American firms or at least American offices? How many of their American staffers stand in danger of being dragged into court and probably losing their licenses as financial advisors? And what will Wall Street make of those companies when the you-know-what finally hits the fan? It could get ugly out there.
The fact that even foreign stock exchanges are now highly correlated with the fortunes of the American stock exchanges is changing the axiom that there is safety in diversifying one's stock among domestic and foreign companies. You may have stock in some foreign banking interests without realizing it, just because you bought into global mutual funds, perhaps. The world markets and financial linkages are now so pervasive that nothing is isolated from general trends in the U.S. as it once was.
It is a difficult time to correctly evaluate the relative risks of mutual funds or any other foreign investments, so perhaps the right kind of diversification is between betting on the rising market and betting on the sinking market. People still have not quite recovered their confidence that times are getting better, in spite of a partial recovery of the Dow Jones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
