Patrick hits the Big Time (Again)

Our own Pat Paule has written a guest article at The Federalist about the upcoming slaughter of impact of the ACA on small group plans. It's a great post (no surprise).

An excerpt:

"The big elephant in the room for small business owners is high costs to insure people. The promise of every family saving $2500 wasn’t something employers ever believed would happen. But they also didn’t anticipate the significant increase in premiums they are about to see due to community rating and narrow age bands."

Please go Read The Whole Thing.

Julie Boonstra goes Boom on The ObamaTax

A few weeks ago, Michigan's Julie Boonstra, a leukemia victim, cut a video critical of her CongressCritter's support of the ObamaTax. This wife and mother soon found herself on the receiving end of the Oh-So-Tolerant-Left, who threatened to sue any media that ran the ad.

But Wolverine Mama Grizzlies are no pushovers:



[Hat Tip: Powerline Blog]

A Principal of Underwriting

Buying life insurance can be a daunting experience. First of all, who wants to think about being dead? Then, one has to consider all the financial considerations and problems facing one's family when one passes on, and make some determination about how much coverage to buy. Finally, one has to then decide what type of plan is appropriate (term, whole life, etc).

And then, one most likely has to "face the needle:" undergo a paramed exam including blood and urine samples.

But what if there was a way to avoid that last step?

The Principal Financial Group has introduced their "accelerated underwriting" process that could dramatically reduce both the intrusiveness and the timeline of the process. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Neal Halder, The Principal's assistant vice president and chief underwriter of individual life insurance, who filled me in on the finer points.

Let's start with the fact that it can often take a month (or longer) for a typical plan to make its way through underwriting. There's the application, of course, then (usually) an exam and maybe a Medical Information Bureau (MIB) report, and then the underwriter has to wait for all those results and inquiries to come in before a decision can be made. In the meantime, the applicant may or may not actually have coverage, and may in fact be having second thoughts about the whole ordeal.

That's where the "Principal Accelerated Underwriting" program comes into play. As Mr Halder explained, "our studies found almost 50 percent of eligible individuals tend to have a high number of favorable health factors so the need for lengthy exams and blood work are simply not necessary." He told me that the program was developed and is owned by Principal Financial Group.

Insurance agents are often loathe to cede control of a case to some other entity, and the "tele-app" process is a great example of that tension. Tele-apps are essentially telephone interviews between the home office and the applicant, and in Principal's accelerated underwriting program they’re used to help move things along. The process is actually pretty simple:

Once the agent and client have settled on a face amount and plan design, the agent consults a one-page checklist [ed: although this isn't a requirement, it's a pretty good idea] that helps cull out those that probably won't qualify. As long as the applicant is 18 to 60 years old and applying for one of their standard life insurance policies (including term, universal and variable life plans) of up to a $1 million of coverage, they might qualify for Principal Accelerated Underwriting. As an aside, a $1 million policy without a blood draw is almost unheard of these days.

Once the completed application hits the home office, Principal checks the MIB, motor vehicle reports and prescription records. At that point, the tele-app folks in Des Moines reach out to the applicant and ask a series of questions (part of the application). Those answers are then forwarded to the underwriter who, based on the MIB and other info and the answers to the tele-app questions, can approve the application with no further input (such as blood or urine) from the client.

It's also worth noting that the rates are the same regardless of the process; that is, one doesn't pay a higher premium by sidestepping the paramed exam.

All in all, a very interesting program. It's always great to find carriers thinking "outside the bun," looking for innovative ways to make it easier for people to buy the coverage they need.

Kudos to Principal, and Many Thanks to Neal Halder!

[Hat Tips to Erica J and Julia M]

Cavalcade of Risk #203: Done and Up

Bob Wilson presents a truly remarkable edition of the Cavalcade of Risk, with almost a dozen interesting entries. From ID Theft to the perils of Physical Interactivity, he's got you covered.

What could *possibly* go wrong?

"Hospital records are being used by private firms advising companies how to target their marketing"

No, this isn't a result of The ObamaTax (yet), but it's clearly where we're heading.

Now, if this was "aggregated" information (that is, information on groups or demographics) then perhaps this could be a good thing: if, for example, it turned out that 40-year-old diabetics were routinely misdiagnosed or treated, then that could help the MVNHS© hone in on specific providers and, perhaps, resolve that problem.

In this case, however, it appears that the (heretofore private) health information of specific patients is being divulged (sold?). On the one hand, "marketing firm Beacon Dodsworth said it had not been able to access raw data, but analysis of the hospital trends, integrated with other information;" on the other, "documents suggest the sensitive data would be used to target people on social media websites such as Facebook."

Fortunately, we have HIPAA and other privacy regulations in place, so that could never happen here.

Right?

That train(wreck) has left the station [UPDATED: Clarification]

Unbelievable:

"...the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements."

Really?

Here's a news flash:

"...even if carriers wanted to sell these plans, they still have to price and file them with the 58 states' departments of insurance, and then feed these rates into their quoting engines"

That's right: the only non-ACA-compliant plans that are left are those that have been grandfathered. And adding insult to injury, grandfathered plans cannot be changed; that is, no deductible changes, no adding or dropping benefits, period. I just looked again, and there are no non-ACA-compliant plans available on or off the Exchange.

Now, some might point to "mini-med" and short term plans as examples of non-ACA-compliant polices, but these were never considered true major medical plans in the first place.

Smoke and mirrors.

UPDATE/Clarification: In re-reading this story (as well as a few others), it appears that this applies to those who went the "early renewal" route in order to stave off the cancellation of their pre-ACA plans for a year. The "relief" is that, under this new regime, those who had in fact renewed early may be able to keep their pre-ACA plans an additional year.

No word yet on whether or not any changes to these policies will be allowed (as they are disallowed on grandfathered plans).

Oh, and let;s not forget that, just a few short months ago, these plans were all characterized as "sub-standard."

Wait, wait!

So, MVNHS© victims patients continue receiving free healthcare.

Eventually:

"Millions of patients wait as long as three weeks to see their GP"

The problem, of course, is quite simple: high demand ("free" healthcare) with low supply (healthcare).

Here, of course, it's a completely different matter: we can't even get the "free" part right. Just ask Jacki Manley:

"...a stay-at-home mom in the western Maryland town of Keedysville, who has been trying since mid-December to enroll in a health plan through that state's health exchange."

Just wait 'til she's signed up, and gets the same great "service" as our Cousins Across The Pond.

The good news is that our Betters-in-DC© don't have to worry about these little hiccups:

"This year, members of Congress and thousands of their staffers are finally signing up for health insurance provided by an ObamaCare exchange ... unlike those millions of Americans, members and staff have a way to opt out of ObamaCare — retirement"

That's right, they actually make enough to get to retire, at which point they can hop back on the incredibly benefit-rich Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

Two legs good, four legs better?

Some thoughts on my Answers.com experience

As I mentioned the other day, my final long-form Answers.com article went up last Thursday (February 27th). Although I'll continue in my role as the Insurance Content Expert Writer (CEW) at Answers, that role has significantly changed.

I think that's a good thing.

When I was first approached to apply for the position, the folks at Answers were very clear as to what they expected from me (10-20 articles per month, each article had to clock in at between 400 and 600 words, specific format choices), and that they could modify that agreement at any time going forward. That seemed (and seems) fair, and I applied for the position knowing full well what that meant.

Or so I thought.

No, they did not mislead me in any way; rather, I misled myself. I had determined that writing 3 articles a week would get me to 12 or so a month, which seemed eminently doable. And heck, this is insurance, after all - how hard could it be to come up with a virtually endless supply of topics?

Aye, there's the rub:

As it turns out, writing "evergreen" articles (that is, non-"topical" pieces that would remain accurate for some indefinite period of time) is a lot harder than I'd anticipated: while insurance policies change all the time, insurance principles generally don't. Plus, I'd determined to go outside my own comfort zone of Life and Health, and try to write about Property and Casualty plans, as well. My knowledge of that side of "the biz" is, hmm, limited, but I have quite a few P&C friends with whom to consult (and to whom I am eternally grateful). Still, I found myself brainstorming topic ideas, in an effort to stockpile as many potential posts as possible.

This became a losing battle.

Fortunately for me, about two months in they lowered my minimum "quota" to 5 posts per month. Surely, I thought, that can't be difficult. Again, I was fooling myself as I quickly ran through my "stash" of topics.

Finally, in early February, I received a very nice email from the folks at Answers.com, informing me that they had revisited the whole CEW program, and decided that the numbers just weren't working. I get that: as far as I can tell, they had dozens of CEWs in various categories  churning out hundreds of articles every month. That's a lot of cash going out and, although I really don't know how much they took in (none of my business, of course), I have to think this became a losing proposition for them.

I was pleasantly surprised at my own reaction: rather than profound disappointment or even anger, I felt relief. After all, I still have my real job, plus IB, and, most important, my family, with whom I would like to spend at least some time.

And then there's that whole sleep thing...

So, beginning this month, I'll be tasked with answering just six insurance-related questions per year, which they'll feed to me every so often, and to which I must craft a 100 or so word response. Of course, this dramatically reduces the amount they're paying me, but I can live with that. The long-form compensation was very nice, but I think we'll survive without it (after all, we survived without it before I accepted the position).

All in all, I must say that this has been a very positive experience, and my "body of work" will remain online at Answers.com (and I'll continue to be their Insurance CEW).

So: Thank You, Answers.com, for the opportunity and the experience!

My (last) new article is up....

At Answers.com:

"A professional insurance agent can provide timely, expert advice on both the types and amounts of coverage you may need, and you don't have to pay extra to access or benefit from it."

This is actually my last long-form article: they've changed the role of CEWs. I'm actually grateful for that, as well as the opportunity to "stretch" my writer's muscles.

Cavalcade of Risk #203: Call for submissions

Bob Wilson hosts next week's Cav. Entries are due by Monday (the 3rd).

To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.

You'll need to provide:

■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post

PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.

'Huis Clos' Updated

Jean-Paul Sartre's 1944 classic "No Exit" described a group of (dead) people, forever locked in a room, trying to ascertain the nature of and reason for their punishment.

Fast forward 7 decades, and FoIB Jeff M alerts us to the story of 64 year old David Carpenter and his 62 year old wife, Sandra, locked in an even scarier scenario: the ObamaTax.

Seems that Mr C made a fateful and (as it turned out) costly mistake: he signed up for an ACA plan at the 404Care.gov site. This would prove to be a disaster, since it turned out that he also began to receive his well-earned VA benefits this year. Since there's not supposed to be any "double-dipping," he needed to cancel his ACA plan forthwith.

That's when he turned to his insurance agent, Stephanie Sheffield. As a Marketplace-certified agent, she was prepared to do battle on the Carpenter's behalf, but quickly learned that "[w]hen there is something that needs to be changed on the policy through the marketplace, no one seems to know how to fix it — not people at the marketplace nor their supervisors."

So in addition to being breeding grounds for ID theft, it turns out that Ms Shecantbeserious and her crew have no idea how to actually service their customers' changes. As a result, the Carpenters could end up owing Uncle Sam some major bucks:

"Carpenter’s dilemma is that at year’s end, he’ll have to pay back any insurance subsidy ... $8,160 for the whole year."

That's a lot of scratch for a couple who've been funemployed for the last 14 months.

But remember:

Health Wonk Review: Marchin' like a lion edition

David Harlow hosts this week's round-up of wonky blog posts, with a little trip to the wild side.

What's so great about this edition is how seamlessly David weaves so many different posts together into a very compelling narrative.

Do check it out.

My new article is up...

At Answers.com:

"A Business Owners Policy offers a reasonably priced alternative to buying insurance coverage ala carte. By pre-packaging common benefits, and offering appropriate customization options, BOP's can save companies money and administrative headaches."

Oh, sure - NOW they tell us!

As we've long noted, the ObamaTax Exchange sites are a veritable treasure trove of ID-theft opportunities. Turns out, though, we may have under-estimated the breadth and scope:

"Security experts worried that 35 state health exchange websites were vulnerable to hackers and were rated as "high risk" for security problems before ObamaCare's launch"

Really? That's a tad over 60% of the Exchanges, and they were known to be high-risk? Thanks, Ms Shecantbeserious, for the heads' up.

Dabney Coleman gets...

The last laugh:

Coming soon to a hospital near you

In case you were (still) wondering about how the ObamaTax would affect your health care, well:

"The Royal College of Surgeons wrote to healthcare inspectors last year warning of “grave concerns” that too many people were dying in the south of the country because of long waits for heart surgery."

No, not Mississippi or Alabama (yet), but the quaint subset of Great Britain called Wales (soon to be Wails?). Turns out that there are (at least) "150 cases in which patients died waiting for life-saving treatment." All part of the grand scheme we call the Much Vaunted National Health System©.

But hey, at least it's "free," right?

Helping Sarah Kliff Solve Her Medical Bill Issue

Former WaPo Wonkblog health policy writer Sarah Kliff is a huge proponent of Obamacare and the expansion of health insurance. She's also been a recipient of excellent employer sponsored insurance benefits. Sarah has a problem. Here is what she tweeted:

2/20 at 11:27am
Sarah Kliff ‏@sarahkliff
Received today an $820 medical bill that I was not expecting nor can I decipher because American health care.
 
2/20 at 11:35am
Sarah Kliff ‏@sarahkliff

I've never tried to negotiate down a medical bill before, but excited for this new personal and professional adventure! 

Sarah, please allow me to help you out.

First, you can't blame the American health care system as the reason for not being able to understand the bill. It's probably an issue with the coding - the little thing called ICD-9 soon to be ICD-10 that you wrote about just a week ago. If the coding was incorrect then the insurance company might have pended the claim until additional information was received.

 

Second, since the bill came from the provider my guess is that the $840 probably is retail charges. Having insurance provides you with a discount on the service. There are a few other things that could have caused you to receive the bill.

• Could it be that the service isn't covered under your plan?
• Could it be that you went to a non-network provider?
• Could it be because your plan has a deductible that you haven't met yet? 

You need to find an EOB that matches up to the bill you received. You should also review your SBC to make sure that the healthcare service was covered under the plan. 

These are the questions a professional advisor would be asking you. From there we would take your bill and your EOB and work with your provider and insurance company to have the claim fixed. It is NOT an easy process - something I'm sure you are finding out.

My new article is up...

At Answers.com:

"While viatical settlements are less common now, Accelerated Benefit Riders on new policies serve the same purpose without requiring the insured to give up ownership of the plan."

My new article is up...

At Answers.com:

"Long Term care annuities offer a simple an effective way to avoid paying out-of-pocket for Long Term Care insurance, and protect one from the possibility of future rate increases. They may also multiply the amount available to cover long term care expenses."

The California Push - A Potential Net Negative

Thanks to the "Lie of the Year" Covered California is able to claim victory. According to data released yesterday Covered CA has now enrolled over 825,000 people which is greater than the goal of 700,000 they had set back in September.

But as Lee Corso would say: "Not so fast my friend."

That little blatant lie President Obama told everyone about if you like your plan you can keep it will be the reason why Covered California can celebrate. The Covered California Board voted unanimously in November to not allow policy renewals for the 1,000,000 insured people to be able to keep the plan that they liked regardless of the President using his Executive power to reinstate them.

For those scoring at home, Covered California used their power to cancel 1,000,000 policies and so far has a total enrollment of 825,000. This is what the government calls a win?