Cavalcade of Risk #115: Call for Submissions

The inestimable Wenchy hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk. Submissions are due this Monday (the 4th). Please remember to include:

■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

Did Retirees Go "Thump?" [UPDATED]

As in this little ditty. Some folks believe so, others (myself included) aren't so sure. Here's the "problem:"

Nearly all plans in force as of September 23, 2010 will be subject to certain ObamaCare© provisions, whether or not they're deemed to have been "grandfathered." These include:

■ Extending coverage to "kids" up to age 26, regardless of their student, marital, financial or residence status (although this does not apply if "Junior" is eligible for coverage at his job)

■ No caps on "essential health benefits" (including ambulatory patient services, hospitalization, and maternity and newborn care, among others).

■ No lifetime maximums on plans (grandfathered plans may still impose annual caps)

Notice that "Nearly all" caveat above: it doesn't apply to retiree-only plans. This is important, because it's not clear whether this is a slap in the face for retirees, a sop for their former employers, or something else entirely. Recall also that many of these same retiree plans benefitted from some $5 billion of our tax dollars to offset costs.

In the event, retiree-only plans are exempt from the list cited above. This is something of a two-edged sword: on the one hand, such plans may be spared (for now) some of the major rate hits, er, hikes that will come about as a result of implementing these additional benefits. On the other hand, a lot of these folks have children in the affected demographic, and at least a few aren't at all happy that they can't keep their kids on (or add them back onto) the plan.

It's not clear to me that either side has a legitimate beef; or, perhaps, both sides do. The end result is that these plans are exempt from the new rules, and will have to live with the consequences. The only real question is whether or not that's a "good thing."

MIKE ADDS: If PPACA is a huge benefit to insureds, and simultaneously a meaningful relief to the budget, why exempt anyone, especially retirees who are the most expensive to cover ?

[Including retirees under PPACA would capture those retiree expense savings which would be highly beneficial to the federal budget. Isn't that so? Or maybe the savings are not so certain after all? Which is it?].

How likely an explanation is "politics" when 65% of the country opposes the whole law?

[And by the way, where was AARP on this? Doesn't AARP claim to be the retirees advocate? What was AARP advocating all this time? I'd say AARP seems to be quietly sneaking away to hide the knife they stuck in the backs of retirees!]

Excluding retiree plans from PPACA requirements can be seen as consistent with

1. Siphoning off $500 billion from Medicare, much of which will come from benefits and the rest from

2. Medicare Advantage - which is under all-out assault. (eg Harvard-Pilgrim Health Plan in Massachusetts exiting from the Medicare Advantage business entirely? H-P has about 22,000 Medicare Advantage subscribers. It seems likely that more plans--particularly smaller ones--will do the same.)

I think the treatment of Medicare is a clear retreat from the social contract expressed when Medicare was born--i.e., Americans agreed to be taxed when young so that we will have protection from medical costs when old. Uh, I guess that meant "unless it gets too expensive." Now, in reality this may be the only reasonable course and it may be inevitable, but it is being dishonestly presented. There is no admission that this administration intends to reduce Medicare cost by reducing benefits as a deliberate strategy. Older Americans are just not worth keeping alive beyond a certain point--a certain price point, I guess. And there is no one explaining (or even asking!) how "fraud and waste" will be reduced when the CMS budget for fraud detection is about the same as in prior years. Instead this administration asserts with a straight face that the new law "preserves and strengthens" Medicare.

Health Wonk Review: "Live long and prosper" edition

Peggy Salvatore takes this week's news about the UN appointing a "space ambassador" into grand orbit, as she presents a star-studded array of interesting posts from the wonkosphere.

It's obvious that she's read each and every post, and she offers them up with a hint of humor while treating each one respectfully.

Bravo, Peggy!

Another ObamaCare© Myth Debunked

Please, people: there's enough "red meat" in the ObamaCare© debacle without having to "make stuff up." In emails and on-line, there's a growing chorus of folks who believe (erroneously) that there's actually a "hidden sales tax" on the sale of people's homes.

No, there isn't:

"(T)here is no "sales" tax on home sales in the health care bill. The bill would impose capital gains taxes on some home sales made by a limited number of taxpayers." [emphasis in original]

Only a few people would even be hit by this capital gains tax: there's a floor on both income and home value. As the Tax Foundation's Tax Policy Blog notes, there's the potential for more homeowners to eventually be affected, based on increasing home values (although there's little evidence that incomes are rising).

Now, if you want to ask “what the heck does selling your home have to do with health care?” Now there’s a great point.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Joe Kristan]

Shecantbeserious vs The Truth

NRO health-blogger Avik Roy has a terrific fisking of yesterday's Wall Street Journal "op-ed" by HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious. He refutes each and every one of her "arguments" with compelling and documented evidence.

A must read for anyone remotely serious about the truth.

Fixed or Not: Ohio Kids' Insurance

Bob just sent me this little tidbit:

"[Ohio] has issued new guidelines aimed at enticing health insurers to reverse decisions to halt offering child-only policies to avoid federal requirements."

The DOI (Department of Insurance) just set forth new rules which they hope will clarify the ObamaCare© provision for so-called "Open Enrollment." The DOI says carriers must hold a one-off Open Enrollment "through Nov. 15 and, following that period, each January and July."

It will be interesting to see if this actually works: as I mentioned to Bob, there are some carriers which are not currently offering child policies, from which I infer that they would be exempt from this provision. If that's true -- and it's a BIG "if -- then I can't see other carriers being all that enthused about taking up the slack.

And lo and behold, the DOI itself acknowledges just this problem:

"Not all health insurers offer these policies, so please check with an agent or insurer to determine where to purchase this coverage."

Faced with this information, how long will it be until there are no carriers offering such coverage?

Any takers?

LTCi Rate Hikes: Outrageous or Responsible?

When sold properly, Long Term Care insurance is a terrific risk-management tool. One thing that sometimes gets overlooked is that (generally speaking) premiums on this product are not guaranteed. That is, although carriers can't single out a particular insured, they can increase the premium for a given "block" of business. John Hancock, one of the "Big Boys" in this market, has just announced that they will, in fact, be seeking a 40% rate increase. There are a lot of (thus far) unanswered questions, chief among them being: which plans, exactly, are affected? There are other questions, as well, which is why we've turned to our "on-call" LTCi Guru, Herman Bruns:

My understanding is that the rate increase will NOT apply to the Custom Care II, Custom Care II Enhanced, or Leading Edge product lines. The older Custom Care product, the Fortis plans, as well as their group offerings will be impacted. Obviously these plans were under-priced at the time.....so it is likely that a 40% rate hike would probably not even bring these plans up to today's level of LTC premiums. The steeper rate hikes will affect the plans with the more robust inflation clauses.....so they will simply be offered things like cutting from 5% compound to 4% compound to maybe keep the premium level.

If the plan was dirt cheap 10 years ago, and it goes up by 25-40%, is it still dirt cheap? Compared to the alternative of not having LTC coverage at all, you still have a decision to make. If the plan had a contingent non-forfeiture clause in it (a standard offering today), and the rates go up by more than a specified percentage based on your age, you get to walk away from your policy and all the money you paid in is held in reserve should you ever need care. Try that with a health plan that you could not longer afford!!!!

[But what about those 10-Pay plans which promise a shorter premium payment time?]

10 pay plans only reduce the payment to 10 years....they don't guarantee the rate for 10 years. If you want a rate lock guarantee, buy a single premium pay plan, or buy a 10 pay with a 10 year rate lock. Happy to sell you either one. Once the plan is paid for, it is paid for. Nothing can be simpler.

[Okay, that makes sense, but what about folks who now find their plans unaffordable?]

If you are concerned about buying a plan and having to bail, buy a plan that lets you walk away from it and get 80% of money back if you need it and can still fog a mirror. Some carriers offer these. Else, buy a linked benefit plan with a single pay, money back guarantee.

Either way, let's not go out of our way to scare people from buying what could be their best protection from catastrophic financial ruin when their $80/month premium jumps to $112/month 10 years after they bought it. My goodness people, we all know how cheap health insurance was a mere 10 years ago, and now we are all upset about what amounts to trivia by comparison.

Maybe John Hancock simply never should have bought Fortis' block, or perhaps they should have tightened their underwriting a little more. If you are big in the group business like Hancock, and you take the majority of people with little or no questions asked, do you think you will have more claims issues than a carrier who focuses more on the individual market? Maybe a lowly A rated carrier like Genworth, who has little group presence, and no substandard health classes to offer, will hang in there better. I'll bet Penn Treaty had more claims than they thought.......but we all know why.

Lets not scare the general public any more than we have to......or do you want the government to take control of LTC insurance too. The Class Act should give you an idea already of the stupidity of government run LTC.

Thanks, Herman!

Life and/or Death under Medicare

Two seemingly unrelated items come to our attention. FoIB Bob D tips us that " (m)illions of seniors face double-digit hikes in their Medicare prescription premiums next year unless they shop for cheaper coverage."

The article refers to so-called Medicare Part D plans (ostensibly, the "D" stands for "drugs;" IB readers know that it actually stands for "debacle"), which are due to change in January. These plans are necessary evils for seniors, who must decide not only whether or not to buy one but also which one among the myriad of choices available.

Well, best scratch that "myriad of choices available," since the market is shrinking:

"Medicare "is really reshaping the market ... There are a lot of plans that are shutting down."

Ooops.

For example, AARP's "MedicareRx Saver" plan (actually issued by United Healthcare) has some one and a half million subscribers, but it's about to be shelved in favor of the more expensive "MedicareRx Preferred" plan. And get this: "Seniors who are already in the AARP Preferred plan ... will see their premiums fall 11 percent on average," subsidized by the folks coming from the erstwhile "Saver" plan. How's that for fair?

And speaking of fair, Medicare isn't just about premiums, it's about coverage. As we saw with the recent Avastin kerfluffle [ed: you really like that word, don't you?], there's more than a little controversy about how end-of-life issues will be treated going forward. FoIB Jeff M points us to news that "Provenge, a first-of-a-kind therapy approved in April ... costs $93,000 a year and adds four months’ survival, on average, for men with incurable prostate tumors."

There are, of course, a number of questions which arise from this. The first, obviously, is the efficacy of spending nearly a hundred thousand dollars for an additional few months of life. Who gets to make this call? The patient? His family? Unaccountable government bureauweenies?

The second is how, or even if, these kinds of medications will continue to be covered. One option, of course, would be for Insurer A's Part D plan to cover it (meaning higher premiums) and Insurer B's to exclude it. That seems like a rational, free-market solution, but is that how it will unfold?

Of Gift Horses and Fine Print

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth" goes the old saw, meaning "when given a present, be grateful for your good fortune and don't look for more by examining it to assess its value." And that's often good advice. But not in the case of the little "present" given by Blue Cross of North Carolina to some of its insureds:

"Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina President and CEO Brad Wilson ... a unique, one-time refund that will return $155.8 million to more than 215,000 individual BCBSNC customers as a result of the Affordable Care Act."

Now, on the surface this seems like a great deal: overpay for insurance, receive an unanticipated refund of that overpayment, and pocket the "found money."

But it's not that simple. You see, there's an interesting little caveat in that announcement, one whose long term implications seem to have flown under the radar:

"The funds come from active life reserves, which are portions of the premium set aside in the early years of a policy to pay future claims and keep rates stable as customers' medical expenses rise during the life of the policy."

Let's step back a moment, and consider the nature of insurance company "reserves." This is money that carriers are required to put away as a sort of "rainy day fund" in case their morbidity and claims estimates fall short of reality. These are generally considered very long term, since plans can theoretically stay on the books for many, many years. And as these plans age, they become less and less stable, with more and more claims arising from the shrinking pool of folks who don't "jump ship."

But ObamaCare© essentially "gifts" these plans with an exit date:

"(P)olicies purchased or substantially modified after March 23 of this year [i.e. "un-grandfathered"] will end in 2014 under the new health care reform law"

Ooops.

If your plan is one that has not been grandfathered, or has become "un"-grandfathered, it's going away in 2014. Think about the implications of that: for one thing, what happens, exactly, if you're on claim? As we saw with the nHealth kerfluffle, such circumstances don't fall under states' Guaranty plans. Theoretically, plans offered in the as-yet undefined Exchanges will be guaranteed issue, which means that one will be able to simply transition to one of those.

Theoretically. The more immediate issue, though, is noted by the Cato Institute's Mike Cannon:

"(E)very BCBS customer who is sick or becomes sick in the future will have less protection against their insurer skimping on care. Competition used to discourage insurers from providing lousy access to care, but under ObamaCare competition will reward skimping."

Still want to send Blue Cross a Thank You note?

[Hat Tip: FoIB Jeff M]

ObamaCare© for Docs

For the past week or so, Mike and I have been participating in an online ObamaCare© "event," sponsored and hosted by LexisNexis' Martindale-Hubell. It's been an opportunity for us to "strut our stuff" for a select audience of legal eagles; the "capper" was a 2-hour webinar on Wednesday, covering ObamaCare© from the perspectives of not just insurance folks, but providers as well.

It is truly scary stuff.

Surprisingly, the most important thing I learned was that it's not just the insurers that are in a tizzy. Providers are in a very bad situation: the "reform" rules hit them as much as they do the carriers. Unlike the insurers, though, many (most?) providers are small (often very small) businesses that are going to have some major tech and other expenses in short order.

My guess is that a lot of them are going to be forced to sell out to the hospitals and/or larger provider "umbrella" organizations. And look for a lot of them to drop out of all insurance networks. I'm also thinking that a lot of them - especially specialists - are going to be shedding Medicare/Medicaid patients.

Hey, a lot of folks wanted "change."

Time for a break from ObamaCare©

We'll continue to bring our readers the latest news and implications, but we certainly don't want to be seen as "All ObamaCare©, All The Time." In that vein, then, consider this:

■ Most wage earners - and even many trusted advisors - simply don't think about disability or its impact.

■ Most wage earners are not prepared for an income limiting event; nearly 40% [say] they could only pay their expenses for 3 months or less if income ceased.

■ Regardless of health and behavior, disability can happen to anyone at any time - plain and simple.

[Courtesy CDA - Council on Disability Awareness]

Concerned yet? You should be. And if you'd like to know just how concerned you should be, the CDA has posted a printable Personal Disability Quotient (PDQ) test that you can take in the privacy of your own home.

Take it for yourself, take it for your family, but take it.

Keepin' it clean (Or not)

With few exceptions, we try very hard to keep InsureBlog "family friendly." Sometimes, though, events overtake us; as vocal (and vociferous) opponents of ObamaCare©, we strenuously object to the characterization attributed to us by Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern [warning: foul language]:



Soap + mouth. Some assembly required.

Cavalcade of Risk #114 now online Down Under

Russell Hutchinson presents this week's glorious round-up of risky posts. You'll be glad you took the chance.

Real Life ObamaCare©: A Tale of Two Clients

This past week, we've been looking at the macro; that is, some of the changes about to be wrought by ObamaCare© from a "big picture" perspective. As we head into the mini-Armegeddon that is 9/23/10, it may be instructive to now consider the micro:

Yesterday, I fielded a call from a long-time client who had some tough questions about grandfathering. He had just received a letter from his insurer offering him the one-time opportunity to re-grandfather his plan.

[ed: under ObamaCare© rules, any changes that were made between March 23rd and June 1st that "un-grandfathered" a plan could be reversed - once! - to reestablish grandfathered status]

My client asked me to explain to him why he received the letter, what it meant, and what he should do. That's one of my roles, by the way: any monkey can sell a policy, professionals understand that it's a much deeper relationship, and part of that means some hand-holding. His plan had become un-grandfathered because he changed his deductible to lower the premium after receiving his renewal in April. At the time, no one knew about this whole "grandfathering" business (hey, we had to "pass it to learn what was in it," and at 2000+ pages, it takes a while for things to become crystallized). That simple change was enough to render his plan un-grandfathered. Who knew?

I explained to him that he had two choices, neither of which was particularly attractive: he could "repair the damage," but then have to cough up the additional premium he would have paid for the intervening 6 or so months. The benefit would be that, theoretically, he would be spared some of the major rate hikes that are about to hit new ObamaCare©-compliant plans. Or he could stick with the plan as is, to which will now be added additional "benefits" he may not want or need, and the next renewal will reflect that reality.

I also spoke with a nice young single mother, whose group plan will be changing significantly on October 1 [ed: one wonders if her employer understands all the ramifications of the changes he's okayed, but he's not my client]. This young lady was underwhelmed by the new plan and its premiums, and wanted to avoid it by purchasing her own plan on the individual market. It was quite disheartening to have to tell her that she was out of luck: there are no carriers currently writing new business for families such as hers (that is, in Ohio and Georgia; YMMV). So much for "more choices and lower rates," not to mention that old saw about keeping the plan you already have.

Hope and Change, Washington style.

"so you can find out what is in it"

Health Affairs recently published an article co-authored by 6 actuaries and economists within the Medicare Office of the Actuary in Baltimore.

It’s a good article, focused on spending projections. Exhibit 5 in the article summarizes the Medicare Actuary’s estimates of enrollments in various insurance programs – both public and private - under current law and under the new (reform) law, for the years 2009 thru 2019.

In particular the enrollment projections for the years 2013 and 2014 are interesting because 2014 is the first year for “full” implementation of health care reform, including the individual mandates and insurance exchanges. Comparing the enrollments projected for 2013 under current law with 2014 under reform law illustrates just how remarkably the insurance landscape is expected to change in 2014.

By far the largest changes are projected for two areas.

First, the uninsured, and this should not be a surprise. The uninsured are estimated to reduce from 50.9 million projected for 2013 under current law, to 25.5 million in 2014 under the reform legislation, a reduction to the uninsured of 25.4 million. That’s a 50% reduction in the number of uninsured. Of course a 100% reduction is unrealistic but couldn’t one have hoped for a reduction larger than 50% in exchange for committing those trillions of our grandchildren’s dollars? Oh, never mind.

The second expected large change is in the number of Medicaid/CHIP insured. This number is expected to grow from 63.4 million projected for 2013 under current law to 85.2 million in 2014 under reform legislation – an increase of 21.8 million people.

Fewer uninsured by 25.4 million. More Medicaid/CHIP by 21.8 million. In other words, health care reform is expected to reduce the uninsured by half, and just about all those people will gain insurance through Medicaid/CHIP. That may be a rather more surprising outcome to many observers.

But actually, growing Medicaid/CHIP is about the only way a meaningful reduction to the number of uninsured could be achieved.

Ohio Health Insurance: Now on hold

Bob's been doing a yeoman's job keeping us updated on the Peach State's health insurance market; now it's my turn to recap what's going on in the Buckeye State.

First, Anthem Blue Cross is in hibernation: no rates, no plans, no quoting for anything past Wednesday (in anticipation of the 9/23/10 mini-Armageddon). We can quote and write Short Term Medical and conversion plans, but that's it on the medical side. No major medical plans for either adults or children. You might say they're on a self-imposed "lockdown."

Next, Humana and Medical Mutual will continue to quote and issue adult-only policies, but no "family" plans which would include children. Humana will not write children-only plans, and it's unclear whether or not Medical Mutual will continue to offer them past the 22nd.

Aetna says that they'll continue to write plans with children if one or more adults are also included. Unfortunately, we don't have rates or plans available yet.

Assurant Health (a relatively minor player in this market) is also closed for business after the 23rd, but hopefully will have plans and rates available in time for October effective dates.

Finally, United HealthCare's individual plans seem to be in flux: for one thing, the soonest you can have coverage effective is 30 days from when they receive the application (or when it's completed online). So the soonest one could have coverage is now October 20th. The quoting system also still includes lifetime and other caps, which are a no-no going forward. I spoke with the Home Office, which confirmed that the caps will not, in fact, be included but the rating system doesn't yet reflect that. They also confirmed that they will also no longer offer child-only coverage.

Hope and change for all!

[Thanks to Kelly W for her help on this post]

Buh-bye, Gramps!

Looks like the promise that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it" is officially dead.

How did I arrive at this morbid conclusion?

By taking this test (and Hats Off to BCBS of Georgia for this interactive tool).

We've covered the "grandfathering" issue before, but it's important to understand that, come this Thursday, (9/23/10), that promise officially goes under the bus. You see, that's the next ObamaCare© "expiration date," and it's by far the most crucial one. After Thursday, the "grandfathering" provisions of ObamaCare© go online, and the countdown to the end of your current plan begins.

How can I be so sure?

It's quite simple, really: when you cut through all the other provisions, there are two which will will make it impossible to keep your current plan. These affect both individual and group plans, and we'll look at both.

The first thing to understand is that being grandfathered means being exempt from certain ObamaCare© provisions, such as Community Rating (coming in '014) and unlimited preventive care (coming this Thursday). The former will increase premiums dramatically, the latter somewhat less. Some employers think that they can insulate themselves from these changes, but one provision in particular makes that impossible: to remain grandfathered, an employer can't increase employee's share of the premiums by more than 5% of the 2010 levels. Not just in 2011, but ever. This means that (to maintain grandfathered status) an employer could never increase the percentage of employee's contributions by more than 5%, while his own premiums begin their inexorable climb upward.

Think you're exempt because you have an individual medical plan? Wrong. As you know, premiums increase because the cost of health care increases; in the past, you could insulate yourself by switching carriers every couple of years. No more: if you switch carriers, you lose grandfathered status. Lose that, and your premiums will go even higher as your plan will now have to include a host of "benefits" you may or may not want or need (and those are just the ones we currently know about - it seems like each day brings revelation of another gotcha as we "learn what's in it").

The bottom line is that you will not be able to keep the plan you have. And if you're in a group, don't think for a minute that your employer isn't seriously considering dropping the group plan altogether. Think that's scare-mongering? Fine, but keep this in mind: businesses exist to make money. The cost of health insurance is already high, and heading higher. Employers aren't (yet) required to offer health insurance, so it's a very easy (and cost-effective) thing to jettison.

Kind of changes one's hopes, doesn't it?

Adverse Selection and the Uninsured

Let's connect some dots, shall we?

According to the folks at Kaiser Health News, the US Census Bureau reports that "[t]he number of people with health insurance in the United States dropped for the first time in 23 years ... percentage of people without health insurance increased to 16.7 percent."

Certainly not great news, but then, not unexpected, either.

Why's that, you ask?

Some of it's basic economics: if Mom and/or Dad has lost their job (as a record number of folks have over the past 2 years), then there's less income. Some expenses are pretty much unavoidable: rent or mortgage payments, food, utilities, that kind of thing. Others are important, but expendable: cable and internet, cell phones, maybe the second car. And some things are "necessary evils:" say, insurance. The life insurance is probably the first to go, but the health insurance is pretty expensive, and the folks are relatively healthy...

If you're down to one (or no) income - as so many Americans are - then you start looking at ways to trim the budget that may not be all that attractive, but are necessary nonetheless. If Dad had a heart attack last year, you're not dropping him, but Mom's past the baby-making years and in good health, and her health insurance premiums could pay a good chunk of the mortgage. Little Timmy is epileptic, so he stays, but his sister Suzie is in pretty good shape, we'll roll the dice on her.

There are some long-term problems with that kind of thinking. For one thing, you're assuming that, if little Suzie gets sick, ObamaCare© will allow her to buy health insurance. As we've seen, that's not necessarily the case. But no one really knew that until now (although a lot of us suspected it). And it also means that the healthier folks are the first ones to bail, leaving behind a sicker insured population. Sicker people means more expensive and frequent claims, which means higher premiums, which means more people dropping their insurance, which means...well, you get the picture.

Is this good news or bad news for folks who see ObamaCare© as the solution? It seems to me that the overarching problem is that it doesn't address the problem that health care costs keep going up, and it's actually driven back any gains we might have made because of what's happened (and continues to happen) to the insurance marketplace. Fewer people working means more people on Medicaid, but also fewer people paying taxes to fund Medicaid (and SCHIP and all the rest). Now, that’s not completely accurate, because there are any number of folks who have ditched the corporate world (some voluntarily, some not) and started their own businesses. But even if they stay insured, that's a wash, no net loss in the pool of insured folks, but no gain, either.

And there's this: as we pointed out some time ago, a rather large cohort of the uninsured is those here illegally. They have health care expenses but no insurance. What portion of that 16.7% are illegals? Who knows, but it's more than a couple. How does ObamaCare© plan to deal with them?

Well, we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it; maybe that's next.

Anthem Blue Cross suspending sales of Child-only plans

Ten minutes ago, I received an email from Anthem stating that they were suspending sales of child-only plans effective today, September 17. The reason cited was the uncertainty created by the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act. Adverse selection was also cited...because some carriers stopped selling child-only plans, the remaining ones were going to get saddled with the kids with medical problems.

There will be some cases when child-only plans will continue to be available:

"The suspension of child-only plans will apply to all states unless a particular state requires the offering of child-only policies. Based on state specific requirements, we will continue to offer Child-only plans in Maine and New York, and in open enrollment periods in Ohio and Virginia. Child-only plans will also be offered in those states requiring such policies for conversion and HIPAA eligible individuals. Existing policyholders will not be impacted by this action and they may continue in their current coverage."

Also unaffected are family plans where the primary subscriber is over 19.

ObamaCare strikes again...just another example of this well thought-out law.

ADDENDUM [HGS]: Bill's up early this morning, and beat me to the punch. For those who may be interested in the fine print, a pdf of the "News Flash" is available here.

Cavalcade of Risk #114: Call for Submissions

Russell Hutchinson hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk. Submissions are due this Monday (the 20th). Please remember to include:

■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.