by L.A.S.
Unclaimed insurance policies may total billions of dollars each year just because family members do not know where your life insurance policies are, or what recent changes to your estate have been made.
This is where a company named WeRemember comes in. They can save family members years of struggle and prevent them from getting over the grief of their loss. They may spend years filing lawsuits against each other or a financial advisor.
Joe Palmer, president and co-founder of WeRemember.org, based in Glenview, Ill., became aware of problems that can arise after his grandfather died in an airplane crash. The family did not know where the final will was, and missing paperwork resulted in family members filing lawsuits against each other.
For a one-time fee of $29.95, an individual can sign up on the WeRemember.org Web site. The person fills out a form listing his or her insurance policies, wills, bank accounts and other pertinent data and where each is or who the lawyer is who holds the information. The forms take about 20 minutes to complete, depending on how many policies and accounts there are.
WeRemember.org sends out regular e-mails reminding clients to update their information. When a client dies, WeRemember.org makes phone calls to heirs to let them know they are entitled to a benefit and tells them how to proceed. No truly personal information, policy numbers or benefit amounts are kept by WeRemember.org.
Sounds like a good service to me.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Things the Healthcare Reform Bill WON'T Fix, and a Handful of Things it WILL Fix and Quickly
by L.A.S.
The hard truth of the healthcare reform bill passed by the US Congress is that most of the provisions will not go into effect until 2014 (the House version would take effect in 2013).
The even harder truth is that even if it does become law, some things will still not be fixed. This is because the special interest groups lobbied hard and long so that their industry would not have to be the ones to pay for a national healthcare program.
As listed by economics writer Paul Zane Pilzer, these are the items that will still need reform. One wonders if the new bill is even worth all the paper and toner used to print it.
# The American Medical Association, representing doctors, was promised that nothing would be done to cut payments to physicians or tie doctor payments to performance.
# Trial lawyers were promised that no caps would be put on legal liability for medical mistakes.
#Big Pharma was promised that nothing would be done to their net revenues — even things like giving Medicaid patients generic vs. brand-name drugs were taken off the table.
# Local insurance companies were promised that they would not have to compete with larger national insurers over state lines.
# Medical network providers were promised that there would not be "transparency" — the varying charges medical providers give each patient would never be disclosed.
On the other hand, the bill does have the saving grace of offering consumers seven quick fixes that will go into effect almost immediately. My thanks to Congress dot org for posting this information.
1. Insuring high-risk citizens. Both bills would create a $5 billion fund for temporary insurance for citizens with pre-existing conditions who have not been insured for at least six months. The program would end once the insurance exchanges begin in 2013 or 2014.
2. Extending insurance for adult children. The House bill would allow parents to keep unmarried adult children on their health insurance until their 27th birthday; the Senate bill, until their 26th birthday. This would reduce the number of uninsured young adults.
3. Extending insurance for the recently unemployed. Under current law, laid-off workers are allowed to continue buying their existing insurance through the COBRA program for up to 18 months. The bills would extend that coverage until the insurance exchanges begin.
4. Ending lifetime limits on benefits. Both bills would end the lifetime caps on insurance coverage which have sometimes been used to deny payments to consumers with particularly expensive treatments. Both bills would also restrict annual limits on health-care benefits.
5. Ending rescission. Insurance companies often cancel policies for consumers who require expensive medical care because they made honest mistakes on their medical histories. Both bills would prohibit insurance plans from canceling coverage except in cases of fraud.
6. Starting to close the doughnut hole. Both bills would begin closing the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage by providing an additional $500 in coverage starting in 2010. Over several years, the gap would be reduced until it was closed entirely.
7. Taxing plastic surgery. The Senate bill would include a new 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The tax is estimated to raise $5.8 billion over the next 10 years. It does not apply to cosmetic surgery to fix problems caused by accidents, disease or birth defects.
So while the healthcare reform bill is far from perfect, it does have some redeeming value. Let us hope that this is only the beginning, and not the end, of healthcare reform.
The hard truth of the healthcare reform bill passed by the US Congress is that most of the provisions will not go into effect until 2014 (the House version would take effect in 2013).
The even harder truth is that even if it does become law, some things will still not be fixed. This is because the special interest groups lobbied hard and long so that their industry would not have to be the ones to pay for a national healthcare program.
As listed by economics writer Paul Zane Pilzer, these are the items that will still need reform. One wonders if the new bill is even worth all the paper and toner used to print it.
# The American Medical Association, representing doctors, was promised that nothing would be done to cut payments to physicians or tie doctor payments to performance.
# Trial lawyers were promised that no caps would be put on legal liability for medical mistakes.
#Big Pharma was promised that nothing would be done to their net revenues — even things like giving Medicaid patients generic vs. brand-name drugs were taken off the table.
# Local insurance companies were promised that they would not have to compete with larger national insurers over state lines.
# Medical network providers were promised that there would not be "transparency" — the varying charges medical providers give each patient would never be disclosed.
On the other hand, the bill does have the saving grace of offering consumers seven quick fixes that will go into effect almost immediately. My thanks to Congress dot org for posting this information.
1. Insuring high-risk citizens. Both bills would create a $5 billion fund for temporary insurance for citizens with pre-existing conditions who have not been insured for at least six months. The program would end once the insurance exchanges begin in 2013 or 2014.
2. Extending insurance for adult children. The House bill would allow parents to keep unmarried adult children on their health insurance until their 27th birthday; the Senate bill, until their 26th birthday. This would reduce the number of uninsured young adults.
3. Extending insurance for the recently unemployed. Under current law, laid-off workers are allowed to continue buying their existing insurance through the COBRA program for up to 18 months. The bills would extend that coverage until the insurance exchanges begin.
4. Ending lifetime limits on benefits. Both bills would end the lifetime caps on insurance coverage which have sometimes been used to deny payments to consumers with particularly expensive treatments. Both bills would also restrict annual limits on health-care benefits.
5. Ending rescission. Insurance companies often cancel policies for consumers who require expensive medical care because they made honest mistakes on their medical histories. Both bills would prohibit insurance plans from canceling coverage except in cases of fraud.
6. Starting to close the doughnut hole. Both bills would begin closing the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage by providing an additional $500 in coverage starting in 2010. Over several years, the gap would be reduced until it was closed entirely.
7. Taxing plastic surgery. The Senate bill would include a new 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The tax is estimated to raise $5.8 billion over the next 10 years. It does not apply to cosmetic surgery to fix problems caused by accidents, disease or birth defects.
So while the healthcare reform bill is far from perfect, it does have some redeeming value. Let us hope that this is only the beginning, and not the end, of healthcare reform.
Have You Been 'Downcoded'?
By L.A.S.
It you have been 'downcoded' (this is a practice in which insurance companies revise a claim made by a doctor or hospital with a lower-price procedure instead of the higher-price procedure submitted by the health care provider), could you please leave a comment with how to reach you? The people at Huffington Post are trying to further investigate this practice, but they need documents, or some kind of source material, to work with.
It you have been 'downcoded' (this is a practice in which insurance companies revise a claim made by a doctor or hospital with a lower-price procedure instead of the higher-price procedure submitted by the health care provider), could you please leave a comment with how to reach you? The people at Huffington Post are trying to further investigate this practice, but they need documents, or some kind of source material, to work with.
Is It Ever a Good Idea to Decline Employer Insurance Coverage?
by L.A.S.
Much to my surprise, a recent article on Wise Bread dot com suggested there might be three occasions when you might reasonably consider declining your employer's health plan.
DECLINE your employer's health plan? The very thought at one time would certainly have made one's blood run cold, especially for those who have families on such a plan.
First, to clarify. They are NOT suggesting that you simply go without insurance. They are simply saying that you may have other viable options.
You may be one of the lucky few who can find a better deal by yourself, whether online or just because you have few medical needs; perhaps you wish to go with a medical savings account or one of those self-directed programs. You may be offered a plan for a supplemental type of insurance such as vision or dental that is more than just a few bucks per month -- and has so little benefit that it defies the purpose of insurance. Or you may be able to obtain a fine plan through another group or through your spouse's employment.
I have probably been in any of those situations myself. For a time, I had a high-deductible health plan with my (former) employer that was a free option. Yes, it was free coverage from the very nice employer, as an alternative to the sticker shock from a huge premium increase.
My vision and dental coverage WAS only a couple bucks a month, so I kept it as long as the premiums were so low. But eventually those premiums rose even faster than the medical plan premiums. And when I went in for a service at a local dentist, I was always forced to sign a paper saying that I would pay the balance that the insurance did not cover. Whoa, that defeated the whole purpose of insurance, to my mind. So eventually, when the premiums reached a break-even point, I just dropped it.
And thankfully, I have found some insurances through other groups that I belong to. I have mentioned some of these strategies in my articles here at Blogspot. People over 50 may find coverage through a membership in AARP, if nothing else is available. Perhaps you belong to a fraternal organization or a club, or a professional group, or even AAA. Even your membership in a buying club like Sam's Club may bring you special prices, not on insurance, but on vision and prescription services. Any or all of them may have an insurance plan or plans for their membership, with no medical exam or other pre-qualification required.
You can read the whole article and decide for yourself at -- www.wisebread.com/3-times-to-consider-declining-your-employers-health-coverage
Much to my surprise, a recent article on Wise Bread dot com suggested there might be three occasions when you might reasonably consider declining your employer's health plan.
DECLINE your employer's health plan? The very thought at one time would certainly have made one's blood run cold, especially for those who have families on such a plan.
First, to clarify. They are NOT suggesting that you simply go without insurance. They are simply saying that you may have other viable options.
You may be one of the lucky few who can find a better deal by yourself, whether online or just because you have few medical needs; perhaps you wish to go with a medical savings account or one of those self-directed programs. You may be offered a plan for a supplemental type of insurance such as vision or dental that is more than just a few bucks per month -- and has so little benefit that it defies the purpose of insurance. Or you may be able to obtain a fine plan through another group or through your spouse's employment.
I have probably been in any of those situations myself. For a time, I had a high-deductible health plan with my (former) employer that was a free option. Yes, it was free coverage from the very nice employer, as an alternative to the sticker shock from a huge premium increase.
My vision and dental coverage WAS only a couple bucks a month, so I kept it as long as the premiums were so low. But eventually those premiums rose even faster than the medical plan premiums. And when I went in for a service at a local dentist, I was always forced to sign a paper saying that I would pay the balance that the insurance did not cover. Whoa, that defeated the whole purpose of insurance, to my mind. So eventually, when the premiums reached a break-even point, I just dropped it.
And thankfully, I have found some insurances through other groups that I belong to. I have mentioned some of these strategies in my articles here at Blogspot. People over 50 may find coverage through a membership in AARP, if nothing else is available. Perhaps you belong to a fraternal organization or a club, or a professional group, or even AAA. Even your membership in a buying club like Sam's Club may bring you special prices, not on insurance, but on vision and prescription services. Any or all of them may have an insurance plan or plans for their membership, with no medical exam or other pre-qualification required.
You can read the whole article and decide for yourself at -- www.wisebread.com/3-times-to-consider-declining-your-employers-health-coverage
Thursday, October 15, 2009
News Stories Poke Holes in Insurers' PR and Spin
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
