02/27/2006
It's beside the point whether the latest Wal-Mart announcement on health care benefits is strictly for show or the real thing. The controversy over what Wal-Mart does or doesn't give its employees is putting health care on the national agenda.
Perhaps the issue will get the attention it deserves.
Last week Wal-Mart announced it would expand coverage for its workers and open more than 50 clinics in its stores. Critics of Wal-Mart scoffed, calling it a public relations gimmick.
Wal-Mart has been criticized for not offering medical insurance to many of its employees. The Maryland Legislature passed a law in January that would force large employers in that state to offer coverage. Wal-Mart is the only employer that law affects. More states are trying to follow Maryland's example.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Ohio Auto Insurance Rates Expected to Fall
February 22, 2006
Insurance officials and company representatives are predicting that automobile insurance rates in Ohio are likely to drop this year, and homeowner insurance bills should remain mostly unchanged.
Advertisement
Insurance Director Ann Womer Benjamin said that there has been a three-year trend of dropping auto rates and that she hopes it will continue, according to a story in the Blade Business Journal. Benjamin said that lower or unchanged rates are possible due to the large number of insurers that write business, creating a highly compeititive market in Ohio.
The Department of Insurance reported that auto insurance rates last year decreased an average of 1.6 percent and homeowner insurance went up only 0.3 percent. The Department is hoping the trend will continue.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners ranks Ohio seventh lowest in the nation in homeowner premiums and 15th lowest in the nation in automobile insurance.
For 2003, the most recent year available, the average premium in Ohio for a homeowner policy was $478, which is $199 less than the national average of $667. The average automobile insurance in the state was $671, which is $150 less than the national average of $821.
The largest drop in auto rates in Ohio last year was by the State Farm Group, which reduced premiums by 4.3 percent.
It lowered homeowner policy premiums an average of 2.5 percent. The company has the largest market share in the state for both types of insurance. A State Farm spokesperon said it was too early to determine Ohio rates for 2006 because the company is still assessing loss history for both auto and homeowners insurance.
Other companies have requested lower rates. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in Columbus, said that firm has two requests pending before the insurance department that, if granted, would lower auto rates by 5.1 percent effective March 6 and would drop homeowner rates by 5.1 percent effective April 22.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. in Madison, Wis., announced last month it will drop its auto rates an average of 18 percent and homeowner rates 2.8 percent in Ohio.
Tim O'Connor, a Holland, Ohio, agent for American Family, said clients have called because they think something is wrong with their bills. People are used to everything going up, so when something like this happens, there's disbelief, he said.
Rate changes depend on a variety of factors, he cautioned, but one of his clients with both homeowner and full auto coverage with American Family recently had a drop in the monthly bill to $130 from $180.
Insurance officials and company representatives are predicting that automobile insurance rates in Ohio are likely to drop this year, and homeowner insurance bills should remain mostly unchanged.
Advertisement
Insurance Director Ann Womer Benjamin said that there has been a three-year trend of dropping auto rates and that she hopes it will continue, according to a story in the Blade Business Journal. Benjamin said that lower or unchanged rates are possible due to the large number of insurers that write business, creating a highly compeititive market in Ohio.
The Department of Insurance reported that auto insurance rates last year decreased an average of 1.6 percent and homeowner insurance went up only 0.3 percent. The Department is hoping the trend will continue.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners ranks Ohio seventh lowest in the nation in homeowner premiums and 15th lowest in the nation in automobile insurance.
For 2003, the most recent year available, the average premium in Ohio for a homeowner policy was $478, which is $199 less than the national average of $667. The average automobile insurance in the state was $671, which is $150 less than the national average of $821.
The largest drop in auto rates in Ohio last year was by the State Farm Group, which reduced premiums by 4.3 percent.
It lowered homeowner policy premiums an average of 2.5 percent. The company has the largest market share in the state for both types of insurance. A State Farm spokesperon said it was too early to determine Ohio rates for 2006 because the company is still assessing loss history for both auto and homeowners insurance.
Other companies have requested lower rates. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in Columbus, said that firm has two requests pending before the insurance department that, if granted, would lower auto rates by 5.1 percent effective March 6 and would drop homeowner rates by 5.1 percent effective April 22.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. in Madison, Wis., announced last month it will drop its auto rates an average of 18 percent and homeowner rates 2.8 percent in Ohio.
Tim O'Connor, a Holland, Ohio, agent for American Family, said clients have called because they think something is wrong with their bills. People are used to everything going up, so when something like this happens, there's disbelief, he said.
Rate changes depend on a variety of factors, he cautioned, but one of his clients with both homeowner and full auto coverage with American Family recently had a drop in the monthly bill to $130 from $180.
Health insurance a hot topic
By MIKE LANDIS
The Register-Mail
GALESBURG - U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has a great health insurance package. He's not sure why all Americans can't be covered under that same umbrella.
During a roundtable discussion with dislocated workers Tuesday morning at Galesburg Works, health insurance surfaced as the leading issue troubling those temporarily out of the work force while retraining for a new career.
"Health insurance, health insurance, health insurance," said Aaron Kemp, a peer counselor with Galesburg Works. "I couldn't be any more clear about what our people are facing as far as insurance, not only for their children but for themselves."
"Jerry and I are the luckiest people in the room, we are federal employees," said Durbin, referring to Jerry Lack, a staff assistant with Congressman Lane Evans, D-Rock Island. "Everybody should have what we have. There's open enrollment every year and I get to choose from nine different health insurance plans. Why shouldn't everybody in America have insurance as good as a member of Congress?"
Durbin said the plan insures eight million federal employees nationwide.
"I've been at this job for a while and every time I come back to the state and meet with people it's always about health insurance," said Durbin. "Whether it's the labor unions, businesses or individuals families, it's always about health insurance. You wonder when somebody is going to wake up in Washington and say this is a national crisis."
Durbin applauded Gov. Rod Blagojevich's All Kids program, which will provide health insurance to all children in the state at a modest monthly premium for parents. The program officially begins July 1.
Health insurance also is an issue for retirees, Durbin said.
Sears CEO recently told the senator the company was dumping retirees' health benefits. The retirees now have to pay for the benefits and the CEO told Durbin the company "had no choice," adding Sears' competition no longer offers benefit packages, particularly for retirees.
"It's a challenge for us to keep our word here, and we must to the people that have worked a lifetime for these benefits," Durbin said.
The senator said the government needs to help small businesses by providing the tax benefits so they can offer health insurance to employees, and added he would like to see citizens able to buy into Medicare when they reach 55.
"You don't have to pay $800 per month," Durbin said of buying into Medicare. "You can pay a lot less for a program that's not a profit-making program and gives you basic protection for you and your family."
The Register-Mail
GALESBURG - U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has a great health insurance package. He's not sure why all Americans can't be covered under that same umbrella.
During a roundtable discussion with dislocated workers Tuesday morning at Galesburg Works, health insurance surfaced as the leading issue troubling those temporarily out of the work force while retraining for a new career.
"Health insurance, health insurance, health insurance," said Aaron Kemp, a peer counselor with Galesburg Works. "I couldn't be any more clear about what our people are facing as far as insurance, not only for their children but for themselves."
"Jerry and I are the luckiest people in the room, we are federal employees," said Durbin, referring to Jerry Lack, a staff assistant with Congressman Lane Evans, D-Rock Island. "Everybody should have what we have. There's open enrollment every year and I get to choose from nine different health insurance plans. Why shouldn't everybody in America have insurance as good as a member of Congress?"
Durbin said the plan insures eight million federal employees nationwide.
"I've been at this job for a while and every time I come back to the state and meet with people it's always about health insurance," said Durbin. "Whether it's the labor unions, businesses or individuals families, it's always about health insurance. You wonder when somebody is going to wake up in Washington and say this is a national crisis."
Durbin applauded Gov. Rod Blagojevich's All Kids program, which will provide health insurance to all children in the state at a modest monthly premium for parents. The program officially begins July 1.
Health insurance also is an issue for retirees, Durbin said.
Sears CEO recently told the senator the company was dumping retirees' health benefits. The retirees now have to pay for the benefits and the CEO told Durbin the company "had no choice," adding Sears' competition no longer offers benefit packages, particularly for retirees.
"It's a challenge for us to keep our word here, and we must to the people that have worked a lifetime for these benefits," Durbin said.
The senator said the government needs to help small businesses by providing the tax benefits so they can offer health insurance to employees, and added he would like to see citizens able to buy into Medicare when they reach 55.
"You don't have to pay $800 per month," Durbin said of buying into Medicare. "You can pay a lot less for a program that's not a profit-making program and gives you basic protection for you and your family."
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Low-Income Health Insurance Program May Die
Tucsan AZ
The state health insurance program KidsCare Parents provides low-cost coverage to more than 14,000 low-income adults.
Republican lawmakers in both the state house and senate have taken steps to eliminate it.
The Bush administration created the program so low-income parents of children covered by the state can get coverage for themselves.
The program is projected to cost $10 million next year.
Federal money once paid for it, but now changes in federal funding mean the state will have to pick up the tab.
Advocates of KidsCare Parents say uninsured patients often go to hospital emergency rooms where they must be treated, regardless of ability to pay.
Hospitals pass on those costs to insured people and that can lead to higher insurance premiums.
Most people enrolled in the program work full-time.
To be eligible a family of four can't make more than about $40,000 a year.
Those families pay premiums of from $45 to $85 a month.
The state health insurance program KidsCare Parents provides low-cost coverage to more than 14,000 low-income adults.
Republican lawmakers in both the state house and senate have taken steps to eliminate it.
The Bush administration created the program so low-income parents of children covered by the state can get coverage for themselves.
The program is projected to cost $10 million next year.
Federal money once paid for it, but now changes in federal funding mean the state will have to pick up the tab.
Advocates of KidsCare Parents say uninsured patients often go to hospital emergency rooms where they must be treated, regardless of ability to pay.
Hospitals pass on those costs to insured people and that can lead to higher insurance premiums.
Most people enrolled in the program work full-time.
To be eligible a family of four can't make more than about $40,000 a year.
Those families pay premiums of from $45 to $85 a month.
State Farm: Let no-fault auto insurance end
A recent Orlando Sentinel editorial overestimates the potential for reform of Florida's no-fault auto insurance system. There have been several efforts to reform Florida's no-fault system for more than a decade. None has had a meaningful effect on reducing costs and helping consumers. The current system is actually costing Florida families millions of dollars in extra premiums every year. That's why lawmakers should allow the system to sunset next year as scheduled.
Despite the Sentinel's assertion, it's not true that State Farm doesn't think anything can be done about the widespread fraud in the system. As Florida's largest insurer, State Farm has proposed real reform for years. What we have learned is that nothing will be done.
That is because real reforms are opposed by the special interests that benefit from a system that provides incentives for fraud and overcharges. Staged accidents, fraudulent claims and grossly inflated medical and legal billings add hundreds of dollars per year to the cost of an auto insurance policy in Florida.
Unlike typical health insurance, workers' compensation and Medicaid-fee schedules, medical providers can charge auto insurance companies as much as they like under the no-fault system, often double normal rates. A similar lack of cost control allows attorneys to run up their rates.
If the no-fault system sunsets as scheduled next year, auto insurance rates for consumers would drop precipitously, and people who cause accidents would be held accountable.
In addition, drivers who have health insurance would no longer be forced to buy PIP insurance that duplicates coverage they already carry.
It is true that health-insurance premiums in Colorado have risen slightly as a result of the repeal of no-fault. But the increases were negligible, and more than compensated for by the savings on auto coverage. The Colorado Division of Insurance reported a 1 percent average rate increase among health insurers directly attributable to the repeal of no-fault.
But Colorado motorists experienced an average 31 percent reduction in premiums for policies with only bodily injury and property-damage coverage, and a 21 percent premium reduction for full-coverage policies. Florida families should expect to save $250 a year when we put an end to the broken system.
There will undoubtedly be some adjustments when Florida's no-fault law ends.
If someone who does not have health insurance is injured, they would be compensated through the medical-payments section of their auto policy. The responsible party's insurer would have to reimburse the victim's insurer.
If the responsible party doesn't carry insurance, the victim would be able to tap uninsured motorist coverage.
In the end, allowing the no-fault system to expire would lower rates for consumers and eliminate rampant overcharges and scamming, setting the stage for a system that rewards good drivers and holds accountable those who are really at fault.
Despite the Sentinel's assertion, it's not true that State Farm doesn't think anything can be done about the widespread fraud in the system. As Florida's largest insurer, State Farm has proposed real reform for years. What we have learned is that nothing will be done.
That is because real reforms are opposed by the special interests that benefit from a system that provides incentives for fraud and overcharges. Staged accidents, fraudulent claims and grossly inflated medical and legal billings add hundreds of dollars per year to the cost of an auto insurance policy in Florida.
Unlike typical health insurance, workers' compensation and Medicaid-fee schedules, medical providers can charge auto insurance companies as much as they like under the no-fault system, often double normal rates. A similar lack of cost control allows attorneys to run up their rates.
If the no-fault system sunsets as scheduled next year, auto insurance rates for consumers would drop precipitously, and people who cause accidents would be held accountable.
In addition, drivers who have health insurance would no longer be forced to buy PIP insurance that duplicates coverage they already carry.
It is true that health-insurance premiums in Colorado have risen slightly as a result of the repeal of no-fault. But the increases were negligible, and more than compensated for by the savings on auto coverage. The Colorado Division of Insurance reported a 1 percent average rate increase among health insurers directly attributable to the repeal of no-fault.
But Colorado motorists experienced an average 31 percent reduction in premiums for policies with only bodily injury and property-damage coverage, and a 21 percent premium reduction for full-coverage policies. Florida families should expect to save $250 a year when we put an end to the broken system.
There will undoubtedly be some adjustments when Florida's no-fault law ends.
If someone who does not have health insurance is injured, they would be compensated through the medical-payments section of their auto policy. The responsible party's insurer would have to reimburse the victim's insurer.
If the responsible party doesn't carry insurance, the victim would be able to tap uninsured motorist coverage.
In the end, allowing the no-fault system to expire would lower rates for consumers and eliminate rampant overcharges and scamming, setting the stage for a system that rewards good drivers and holds accountable those who are really at fault.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Health insurance may burn smokers
By Lisa Cornwell
Associated Press
CINCINNATI – Smokers already feeling pressure from increasing cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are now feeling squeezed from another direction – health insurance premiums.
A growing number of employers – private and public – are charging employees who use tobacco more money for their health insurance coverage. Employers hope that the higher charges will motivate more employees to stop smoking, resulting in improved health and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.
Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.
“With health care costs increasing by double digits in the last few years, employers are desperate to rein in costs to themselves and their employees,” said Linda Cushman, senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting and services firm.
She said the practice of smoker surcharges is becoming such a significant trend that this year, it will be part of Hewitt’s annual survey of companies’ current and future health care plans.
Cushman said a general benefits survey of 950 U.S.-based employers last year showed that at least 41 percent used some form of financial incentives or penalties in their health care plans.
She estimates that at least 8 percent to 10 percent of the businesses probably aimed some of the incentives or penalties at smokers and says that percentage is growing.
“With smokers costing companies about 25 percent more than non-smokers in the area of health care, it just makes good business sense,” she said.
In Indiana, it may take until July for employers to implement incentives for non-smokers.
Scott Tittle, special counsel and policy director on health issues at Gov. Mitch Daniels’ office, said that the state has a law that prevents employers from discriminating against smokers in hiring considerations, compensation and benefits. However, both Daniels and state lawmakers are pushing legislation that will allow employers to provide incentives to workers who do not smoke.
“The governor has a twofold goal,” Tittle said. “He wants to reduce the number of smokers in the state as well as reduce the cost of providing health insurance for employers. Nationwide, Indiana ranks seventh in terms of adult smoking rates.”
There are currently two live bills in the state legislature that address the issue of tobacco use and cost of health insurance. One has passed the House, and the other has been approved by the Senate, but both must be voted on by the opposite chamber. Tittle said that should be done by March 14.
“The measures have received overwhelming support so far,” Tittle said, adding he expects the bills to pass.
If approved, the law will go into effect July 1, allowing employers to implement financial incentives to reduce smoking among employees, which in turn will lower their cost of providing health insurance.
But Tittle was not able to provide an estimated financial benefit to employers.
A spokesman for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Indiana was unable to say how employers would respond if the measures are approved.
“Honestly, we don’t know what impact it will have,” Tony Felts said last week. “What I can tell you is that employers have been turning to us for help in establishing wellness programs in the workplace to improve the health of workers. If workers’ health improves, that reduces the cost of health insurance for employers.”
One executive at a local company was not sure what the company would decide if the bill is passed.
“Unless we see exactly what benefits the employee or the company will get, it’s hard for me to say whether we will implement such a plan or whether we won’t,” said Darlene Whaley, vice president of human resources at Warsaw-based orthopedics firm Biomet Inc.
Elsewhere, the companies imposing the surcharges are mostly self-insured, with employers and employees sharing the insurance premium costs.
Other companies or insurance plans have offered workers financial rewards for exercising, dieting or other healthy behaviors. Some have started on-site fitness programs and are paying for gym memberships.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates $92 billion in lost wages annually in the United States from smokers who die prematurely. In addition, the economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.
“In addition to employers having to pay out more in health care costs, public opinion is now solidly on the side of eliminating smoking, and workers are realizing increasingly that they are having to pay for others’ lifestyle choices,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a non-profit agency representing more than 200 of the nation’s large employers.
Gannett Co., the nation’s largest newspaper publisher, this year began charging employees who smoke an extra $50 a month for the company’s insurance coverage.
“We have some strong feelings that smoking is really bad for employees, and a healthier employee is better for us,” said Tara Connell, a spokeswoman for the McLean, Va.-based company.
PepsiCo Inc., based in Purchase, N.Y., has been charging employees who use tobacco $100 annually for a couple of years, and Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer Inc. started charging smokers $25 a month this year. That fee is dropped if smokers complete a smoking-cessation program, Meijer spokeswoman Judith Clark said.
Cincinnati-based American Financial Group holding company and its subsidiaries waive the $37.92 monthly fee for a year if smokers make a good-faith effort and complete the company’s stop-smoking program, said Scott Beeken, a vice president with the Great American Insurance Group subsidiary. If the employee starts smoking, the fee would be reinstated the next year.
About 35 workers were expected to enroll if the voluntary program had not included the financial incentive, but 325 have signed up so far.
“The charge probably was a motivating factor,” Beeken said.
Public employers also are requiring smokers to pay for their habit.
The state of Alabama on Oct. 1 began charging $20 a month extra per employee insurance contract. The charge applies if anyone covered under a contract – such as a spouse – smokes. Georgia charges $40 a month for smokers covered under the state’s health plan. Employees caught lying on their insurance form about whether they smoke could lose their insurance for a year.
The state health plan kept having cost overruns because of rising costs and high use, said Georgia state Sen. Tommie Williams, R-Lyons.
“We know smokers cost more as far as health care goes,” said Gary Matthews, deputy administrator of the Alabama State Employees’ Insurance Board. “We are putting the burden on them to take responsibility for their own health.”
Employers say the surcharges are incentives rather than penalties, but that’s not the way many smokers see it.
“Where is it going to end?” asked Jim Clark, a smoker and owner of Strauss Tobacconist in Cincinnati. “Are they going to start saying you can’t wear a blue shirt on Monday or drive a green car on Thursday?”
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, said that making smokers pay more for insurance and take more responsibility for their health choices is not inherently wrong, but he worries about the precedent the surcharges may set.
“They could be the first step down a very dangerous road,” Maltby said. “Do we really want to live in a world where employers penalize us for everything in our private lives that isn’t healthy?” he said.
Some employers have turned to even stronger measures to discourage smoking. Weyco Inc., an Okemos, Mich.-based medical benefits administrator, fires employees who smoke even if it is on their own time.
Jim Wendling, a 45-year-old employee for Cincinnati-based Kroger Co., recently acknowledged on Kroger’s health survey that he is a smoker. Even though Kroger doesn’t charge smokers more for insurance, he fears the survey may be the first step in that direction.
“I personally don’t think a company should tell employees what to do when they are not at work,” Wendling said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging premiums
Some private and public employers that require tobacco-using employees to pay more than non-smokers for their health insurance:
•American Financial Group Inc.
•Gannett Co.
•PepsiCo Inc.
•Meijer Inc.
•General Mills Inc.
•Western & Southern Financial Group
•Northwestern Mutual
•Blue Cross of Idaho
•Georgia
•Alabama
•West Virginia
•Kentucky
Associated Press
CINCINNATI – Smokers already feeling pressure from increasing cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are now feeling squeezed from another direction – health insurance premiums.
A growing number of employers – private and public – are charging employees who use tobacco more money for their health insurance coverage. Employers hope that the higher charges will motivate more employees to stop smoking, resulting in improved health and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.
Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.
“With health care costs increasing by double digits in the last few years, employers are desperate to rein in costs to themselves and their employees,” said Linda Cushman, senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting and services firm.
She said the practice of smoker surcharges is becoming such a significant trend that this year, it will be part of Hewitt’s annual survey of companies’ current and future health care plans.
Cushman said a general benefits survey of 950 U.S.-based employers last year showed that at least 41 percent used some form of financial incentives or penalties in their health care plans.
She estimates that at least 8 percent to 10 percent of the businesses probably aimed some of the incentives or penalties at smokers and says that percentage is growing.
“With smokers costing companies about 25 percent more than non-smokers in the area of health care, it just makes good business sense,” she said.
In Indiana, it may take until July for employers to implement incentives for non-smokers.
Scott Tittle, special counsel and policy director on health issues at Gov. Mitch Daniels’ office, said that the state has a law that prevents employers from discriminating against smokers in hiring considerations, compensation and benefits. However, both Daniels and state lawmakers are pushing legislation that will allow employers to provide incentives to workers who do not smoke.
“The governor has a twofold goal,” Tittle said. “He wants to reduce the number of smokers in the state as well as reduce the cost of providing health insurance for employers. Nationwide, Indiana ranks seventh in terms of adult smoking rates.”
There are currently two live bills in the state legislature that address the issue of tobacco use and cost of health insurance. One has passed the House, and the other has been approved by the Senate, but both must be voted on by the opposite chamber. Tittle said that should be done by March 14.
“The measures have received overwhelming support so far,” Tittle said, adding he expects the bills to pass.
If approved, the law will go into effect July 1, allowing employers to implement financial incentives to reduce smoking among employees, which in turn will lower their cost of providing health insurance.
But Tittle was not able to provide an estimated financial benefit to employers.
A spokesman for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Indiana was unable to say how employers would respond if the measures are approved.
“Honestly, we don’t know what impact it will have,” Tony Felts said last week. “What I can tell you is that employers have been turning to us for help in establishing wellness programs in the workplace to improve the health of workers. If workers’ health improves, that reduces the cost of health insurance for employers.”
One executive at a local company was not sure what the company would decide if the bill is passed.
“Unless we see exactly what benefits the employee or the company will get, it’s hard for me to say whether we will implement such a plan or whether we won’t,” said Darlene Whaley, vice president of human resources at Warsaw-based orthopedics firm Biomet Inc.
Elsewhere, the companies imposing the surcharges are mostly self-insured, with employers and employees sharing the insurance premium costs.
Other companies or insurance plans have offered workers financial rewards for exercising, dieting or other healthy behaviors. Some have started on-site fitness programs and are paying for gym memberships.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates $92 billion in lost wages annually in the United States from smokers who die prematurely. In addition, the economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.
“In addition to employers having to pay out more in health care costs, public opinion is now solidly on the side of eliminating smoking, and workers are realizing increasingly that they are having to pay for others’ lifestyle choices,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a non-profit agency representing more than 200 of the nation’s large employers.
Gannett Co., the nation’s largest newspaper publisher, this year began charging employees who smoke an extra $50 a month for the company’s insurance coverage.
“We have some strong feelings that smoking is really bad for employees, and a healthier employee is better for us,” said Tara Connell, a spokeswoman for the McLean, Va.-based company.
PepsiCo Inc., based in Purchase, N.Y., has been charging employees who use tobacco $100 annually for a couple of years, and Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer Inc. started charging smokers $25 a month this year. That fee is dropped if smokers complete a smoking-cessation program, Meijer spokeswoman Judith Clark said.
Cincinnati-based American Financial Group holding company and its subsidiaries waive the $37.92 monthly fee for a year if smokers make a good-faith effort and complete the company’s stop-smoking program, said Scott Beeken, a vice president with the Great American Insurance Group subsidiary. If the employee starts smoking, the fee would be reinstated the next year.
About 35 workers were expected to enroll if the voluntary program had not included the financial incentive, but 325 have signed up so far.
“The charge probably was a motivating factor,” Beeken said.
Public employers also are requiring smokers to pay for their habit.
The state of Alabama on Oct. 1 began charging $20 a month extra per employee insurance contract. The charge applies if anyone covered under a contract – such as a spouse – smokes. Georgia charges $40 a month for smokers covered under the state’s health plan. Employees caught lying on their insurance form about whether they smoke could lose their insurance for a year.
The state health plan kept having cost overruns because of rising costs and high use, said Georgia state Sen. Tommie Williams, R-Lyons.
“We know smokers cost more as far as health care goes,” said Gary Matthews, deputy administrator of the Alabama State Employees’ Insurance Board. “We are putting the burden on them to take responsibility for their own health.”
Employers say the surcharges are incentives rather than penalties, but that’s not the way many smokers see it.
“Where is it going to end?” asked Jim Clark, a smoker and owner of Strauss Tobacconist in Cincinnati. “Are they going to start saying you can’t wear a blue shirt on Monday or drive a green car on Thursday?”
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, said that making smokers pay more for insurance and take more responsibility for their health choices is not inherently wrong, but he worries about the precedent the surcharges may set.
“They could be the first step down a very dangerous road,” Maltby said. “Do we really want to live in a world where employers penalize us for everything in our private lives that isn’t healthy?” he said.
Some employers have turned to even stronger measures to discourage smoking. Weyco Inc., an Okemos, Mich.-based medical benefits administrator, fires employees who smoke even if it is on their own time.
Jim Wendling, a 45-year-old employee for Cincinnati-based Kroger Co., recently acknowledged on Kroger’s health survey that he is a smoker. Even though Kroger doesn’t charge smokers more for insurance, he fears the survey may be the first step in that direction.
“I personally don’t think a company should tell employees what to do when they are not at work,” Wendling said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging premiums
Some private and public employers that require tobacco-using employees to pay more than non-smokers for their health insurance:
•American Financial Group Inc.
•Gannett Co.
•PepsiCo Inc.
•Meijer Inc.
•General Mills Inc.
•Western & Southern Financial Group
•Northwestern Mutual
•Blue Cross of Idaho
•Georgia
•Alabama
•West Virginia
•Kentucky
Friday, February 17, 2006
Quote Requests on Insurance.com Increased More than 20% in 2005
February 15, 2006 - Cleveland - Insurance.com, an online auto insurance agency, claims that consumer car insurance quote requests on its Web site increased by more than 20% in 2005, the fourth straight year of growth.
"During the past five years we have seen a tremendous growth on our site as a result of customers' increased confidence level with the Internet," says Insurance.com President Lou Geremia. "We've embraced this new growth by adding over 100 licensed insurance agents to our sales center and have extended our sales center hours to 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Standard."
Currently, more than a dozen insurance carriers offer instant, competitive car insurance quotes through Insurance.com's Web site. Customers are able to view multiple quotes and perform side-by-side comparisons to identify the car insurance policy that meets their needs. In addition, customers have the option to purchase their policy online or through a licensed agent via Insurance.com's toll-free number.
Presently, Insurance.com offers consumers comparative car insurance quotes in every state except Massachusetts, Alaska and Hawaii.
"During the past five years we have seen a tremendous growth on our site as a result of customers' increased confidence level with the Internet," says Insurance.com President Lou Geremia. "We've embraced this new growth by adding over 100 licensed insurance agents to our sales center and have extended our sales center hours to 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Standard."
Currently, more than a dozen insurance carriers offer instant, competitive car insurance quotes through Insurance.com's Web site. Customers are able to view multiple quotes and perform side-by-side comparisons to identify the car insurance policy that meets their needs. In addition, customers have the option to purchase their policy online or through a licensed agent via Insurance.com's toll-free number.
Presently, Insurance.com offers consumers comparative car insurance quotes in every state except Massachusetts, Alaska and Hawaii.
Another obstacle for smokers: health insurance costs
Associated Press
CINCINNATI — Smokers squeezed by soaring cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are increasingly being hit with another cost increase — this time for health insurance.
A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.
Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.
"With health care costs increasing by double digits in the last few years, employers are desperate to rein in costs to themselves and their employees," said Linda Cushman, senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting and services firm.
She said the practice of smoker surcharges is becoming such a significant trend that this year, it will be part of Hewitt's annual survey of companies' current and future health care plans.
Cushman said a general benefits survey of 950 U.S.-based employers last year showed that at least 41 percent used some form of financial incentives or penalties in their health care plans.
She estimates that at least 8 percent to 10 percent of the businesses probably aimed some of the incentives or penalties at smokers and says that percentage is growing.
"With smokers costing companies about 25 percent more than nonsmokers in the area of health care, it just makes good business sense," she said.
The companies imposing the surcharges are mostly self-insured, with employers and employees sharing the insurance premium costs.
Other companies or insurance plans have offered workers financial rewards for exercising, dieting or other healthy behaviors. Some have started onsite fitness programs and are paying for gym memberships.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates $92 billion in lost wages annually in the United States from smokers who die prematurely. In addition, the economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.
"In addition to employers having to pay out more in health care costs, public opinion is now solidly on the side of eliminating smoking and workers are realizing increasingly that they are having to pay for others' lifestyle choices," said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a nonprofit agency representing more than 200 of the nation's large employers.
Gannett Co., the nation's largest newspaper publisher, this year began charging its employees who smoke an extra $50 a month for the company's insurance coverage.
"We have some strong feelings that smoking is really bad for employees, and a healthier employee is better for us," said Tara Connell, a spokeswoman for the McLean, Va.-based company.
PepsiCo Inc., based in Purchase, N.Y., has been charging employees who use tobacco $100 annually for a couple of years, and Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer Inc. started charging smokers $25 a month this year. That fee is dropped if smokers complete a smoking-cessation program, said Meijer spokeswoman Judith Clark.
Cincinnati-based American Financial Group holding company and its subsidiaries waive the $37.92 monthly fee for a year if smokers make a good-faith effort and complete the company's stop-smoking program, said Scott Beeken, a vice president with the Great American Insurance Group subsidiary. If the employee starts smoking, the fee would be reinstated the next year.
About 35 workers were expected to enroll if the voluntary program had not included the financial incentive, but 325 have signed up so far.
"The charge probably was a motivating factor," Beeken said.
Public employers also are requiring smokers to pay for their habit.
The state of Alabama on Oct. 1 began charging $20 a month extra per employee insurance contract. The charge applies if anyone covered under a contract — such as a spouse — smokes. Georgia charges $40 a month for smokers covered under the state's health plan. Employees caught lying on their insurance form about whether they smoke could lose their insurance for a year.
The state health plan kept having cost overruns due to rising costs and high use, said Georgia state Sen. Tommie Williams, R-Lyons.
"We know smokers cost more as far as health care goes," said Gary Matthews, deputy administrator of the Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board. "We are putting the burden on them to take responsibility for their own health."
Employers say the surcharges are incentives rather than penalties, but that's not the way many smokers see it.
"Where is it going to end?" asked Jim Clark, a smoker and owner of Strauss Tobacconist in Cincinnati. "Are they going to start saying you can't wear a blue shirt on Monday or drive a green car on Thursday?"
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, says that making smokers pay more for insurance and take more responsibility for their health choices is not inherently wrong, but he worries about the precedent the surcharges may set.
"They could be the first step down a very dangerous road," Maltby said. "Do we really want to live in a world where employers penalize us for everything in our private lives that isn't healthy?" he said.
Some employers have turned to even stronger measures to discourage smoking. Weyco Inc., an Okemos, Mich.-based medical benefits administrator, fires employees who smoke even if it is on their own time.
Jim Wendling, a 45-year-old employee for Cincinnati-based Kroger Co., recently acknowledged on Kroger's health survey that he is a smoker. Even though Kroger doesn't charge smokers more for insurance, he fears the survey may be the first step in that direction.
"I personally don't think a company should tell employees what to do when they are not at work," Wendling said.
CINCINNATI — Smokers squeezed by soaring cigarette costs and workplace smoking bans are increasingly being hit with another cost increase — this time for health insurance.
A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.
Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.
"With health care costs increasing by double digits in the last few years, employers are desperate to rein in costs to themselves and their employees," said Linda Cushman, senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting and services firm.
She said the practice of smoker surcharges is becoming such a significant trend that this year, it will be part of Hewitt's annual survey of companies' current and future health care plans.
Cushman said a general benefits survey of 950 U.S.-based employers last year showed that at least 41 percent used some form of financial incentives or penalties in their health care plans.
She estimates that at least 8 percent to 10 percent of the businesses probably aimed some of the incentives or penalties at smokers and says that percentage is growing.
"With smokers costing companies about 25 percent more than nonsmokers in the area of health care, it just makes good business sense," she said.
The companies imposing the surcharges are mostly self-insured, with employers and employees sharing the insurance premium costs.
Other companies or insurance plans have offered workers financial rewards for exercising, dieting or other healthy behaviors. Some have started onsite fitness programs and are paying for gym memberships.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates $92 billion in lost wages annually in the United States from smokers who die prematurely. In addition, the economic cost of smoking includes $75.5 billion per year in direct health care costs.
"In addition to employers having to pay out more in health care costs, public opinion is now solidly on the side of eliminating smoking and workers are realizing increasingly that they are having to pay for others' lifestyle choices," said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a nonprofit agency representing more than 200 of the nation's large employers.
Gannett Co., the nation's largest newspaper publisher, this year began charging its employees who smoke an extra $50 a month for the company's insurance coverage.
"We have some strong feelings that smoking is really bad for employees, and a healthier employee is better for us," said Tara Connell, a spokeswoman for the McLean, Va.-based company.
PepsiCo Inc., based in Purchase, N.Y., has been charging employees who use tobacco $100 annually for a couple of years, and Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer Inc. started charging smokers $25 a month this year. That fee is dropped if smokers complete a smoking-cessation program, said Meijer spokeswoman Judith Clark.
Cincinnati-based American Financial Group holding company and its subsidiaries waive the $37.92 monthly fee for a year if smokers make a good-faith effort and complete the company's stop-smoking program, said Scott Beeken, a vice president with the Great American Insurance Group subsidiary. If the employee starts smoking, the fee would be reinstated the next year.
About 35 workers were expected to enroll if the voluntary program had not included the financial incentive, but 325 have signed up so far.
"The charge probably was a motivating factor," Beeken said.
Public employers also are requiring smokers to pay for their habit.
The state of Alabama on Oct. 1 began charging $20 a month extra per employee insurance contract. The charge applies if anyone covered under a contract — such as a spouse — smokes. Georgia charges $40 a month for smokers covered under the state's health plan. Employees caught lying on their insurance form about whether they smoke could lose their insurance for a year.
The state health plan kept having cost overruns due to rising costs and high use, said Georgia state Sen. Tommie Williams, R-Lyons.
"We know smokers cost more as far as health care goes," said Gary Matthews, deputy administrator of the Alabama State Employees' Insurance Board. "We are putting the burden on them to take responsibility for their own health."
Employers say the surcharges are incentives rather than penalties, but that's not the way many smokers see it.
"Where is it going to end?" asked Jim Clark, a smoker and owner of Strauss Tobacconist in Cincinnati. "Are they going to start saying you can't wear a blue shirt on Monday or drive a green car on Thursday?"
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, says that making smokers pay more for insurance and take more responsibility for their health choices is not inherently wrong, but he worries about the precedent the surcharges may set.
"They could be the first step down a very dangerous road," Maltby said. "Do we really want to live in a world where employers penalize us for everything in our private lives that isn't healthy?" he said.
Some employers have turned to even stronger measures to discourage smoking. Weyco Inc., an Okemos, Mich.-based medical benefits administrator, fires employees who smoke even if it is on their own time.
Jim Wendling, a 45-year-old employee for Cincinnati-based Kroger Co., recently acknowledged on Kroger's health survey that he is a smoker. Even though Kroger doesn't charge smokers more for insurance, he fears the survey may be the first step in that direction.
"I personally don't think a company should tell employees what to do when they are not at work," Wendling said.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Corporate Data Leaked
By First Coast News Staff
JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida say corporate data was inappropriately transferred to a home computer. This is a violation of BCBSF's established polices and procedures.
Names and Social Security numbers of current and former employees, contractors and vendors were included in the data.
BCBSF was able to take appropriate action. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the matter.
No customer information or personal health information was included in the inappropriate actions. Also, no banking, credit card, home address or drivers' license information was leaked.
One person was involved in the incident. The individual's access has been terminated to all of BCBSF's systems.
If there are any questions, contact BCBSF at 904-905-3402
JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida say corporate data was inappropriately transferred to a home computer. This is a violation of BCBSF's established polices and procedures.
Names and Social Security numbers of current and former employees, contractors and vendors were included in the data.
BCBSF was able to take appropriate action. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the matter.
No customer information or personal health information was included in the inappropriate actions. Also, no banking, credit card, home address or drivers' license information was leaked.
One person was involved in the incident. The individual's access has been terminated to all of BCBSF's systems.
If there are any questions, contact BCBSF at 904-905-3402
The Hartford Announces Lower Car Insurance Prices in Indiana
Press Release
HARTFORD, Conn., Feb. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- To better serve its
Indiana agents and customers, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
(NYSE: HIG), one of the nation's leading providers of investment and insurance
products, announced today that it will offer lower prices to many drivers
under its popular Dimensions personal auto insurance program, which is
available through the company's network of independent agents.
New price adjustments will make the competitively-priced Dimensions plan
an even better choice when it comes to car insurance in the Hoosier state.
These changes will enable agents and their front line representatives to reach
a greater number of customers with the following benefits:
* Lower prices for approximately one-third of existing and prospective
customers.
* Annual savings of $100 or more for 25% of these reduced-price customers.
* Changes effective February 15, 2006 for new policies and April 5, 2006
for renewal business.
"The auto insurance market is extremely competitive, and we're constantly
reviewing our rates to remain a top player in the state," said Mike Concannon,
senior vice president for The Hartford. "While Dimensions is already a huge
success, we're thrilled to be offering it at even lower prices. This will
certainly give our 117 personal lines agents in Indiana one more reason to
quote The Hartford."
The Hartford's announcement marks the third time in the past year that the
company has voluntarily lowered personal auto insurance prices in Indiana.
During that same period, it has also grown the number of its agency
relationships from 71 to 117, leveraging its competitiveness, financial
strength and leading edge technology to remain a trusted name with both agents
and policyholders.
About The Hartford's Dimensions Program:
One of the most sophisticated underwriting plans in the industry,
Dimensions offers a state-of-the-art, multi-dimensional approach to pricing,
or "rating," a customer's driving risk. By connecting and calculating
numerous risk factors -- such as age, driving history, vehicle age and vehicle
use -- The Hartford enables agents to generate a customized rate for each
policyholder. Unlike other programs, Dimensions evaluates customers on an
individual basis so that one driver will not affect the rates of other members
in the same household.
With this personalized approach, agents are better equipped to keep their
customers satisfied at every stage of life without drastically changing the
price they pay for auto insurance each year. Underwriting is also much easier
for agents and their service representatives, who can take advantage of The
Hartford's easy-to-use electronic quoting, submission and issuing systems.
The Hartford's Dimensions plan, which offers a full range of comprehensive
auto coverage, was first launched in 2003 and is now available in 41 states,
including Indiana. Since the program's inception, the company's Indiana
agency-based auto insurance business has grown more than 55 percent.
HARTFORD, Conn., Feb. 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- To better serve its
Indiana agents and customers, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
(NYSE: HIG), one of the nation's leading providers of investment and insurance
products, announced today that it will offer lower prices to many drivers
under its popular Dimensions personal auto insurance program, which is
available through the company's network of independent agents.
New price adjustments will make the competitively-priced Dimensions plan
an even better choice when it comes to car insurance in the Hoosier state.
These changes will enable agents and their front line representatives to reach
a greater number of customers with the following benefits:
* Lower prices for approximately one-third of existing and prospective
customers.
* Annual savings of $100 or more for 25% of these reduced-price customers.
* Changes effective February 15, 2006 for new policies and April 5, 2006
for renewal business.
"The auto insurance market is extremely competitive, and we're constantly
reviewing our rates to remain a top player in the state," said Mike Concannon,
senior vice president for The Hartford. "While Dimensions is already a huge
success, we're thrilled to be offering it at even lower prices. This will
certainly give our 117 personal lines agents in Indiana one more reason to
quote The Hartford."
The Hartford's announcement marks the third time in the past year that the
company has voluntarily lowered personal auto insurance prices in Indiana.
During that same period, it has also grown the number of its agency
relationships from 71 to 117, leveraging its competitiveness, financial
strength and leading edge technology to remain a trusted name with both agents
and policyholders.
About The Hartford's Dimensions Program:
One of the most sophisticated underwriting plans in the industry,
Dimensions offers a state-of-the-art, multi-dimensional approach to pricing,
or "rating," a customer's driving risk. By connecting and calculating
numerous risk factors -- such as age, driving history, vehicle age and vehicle
use -- The Hartford enables agents to generate a customized rate for each
policyholder. Unlike other programs, Dimensions evaluates customers on an
individual basis so that one driver will not affect the rates of other members
in the same household.
With this personalized approach, agents are better equipped to keep their
customers satisfied at every stage of life without drastically changing the
price they pay for auto insurance each year. Underwriting is also much easier
for agents and their service representatives, who can take advantage of The
Hartford's easy-to-use electronic quoting, submission and issuing systems.
The Hartford's Dimensions plan, which offers a full range of comprehensive
auto coverage, was first launched in 2003 and is now available in 41 states,
including Indiana. Since the program's inception, the company's Indiana
agency-based auto insurance business has grown more than 55 percent.
Senators to pay more for health insurance
By Bill Ruthhart
bill.ruthhart@indystar.com
The Indiana Senate today modified its health care coverage to lessen the burden on Indiana taxpayers.
Under changes announced this morning, senators would have to pay more for their health coverage.
Health insurance will only apply to legislators who retire after the age of 50 with at least six years and one day of service in the legislature. Previously, health benefits applied to lawmakers of any age.
The move comes less than a month after the House simply eliminated the generous plan.
In January, House Speaker Brian C. Bosma, R-Indianapolis, revoked lifetime health benefits for state representatives.
That plan, which had been offered since 2002, still applies to about 25 retired legislators and anyone with six years and one day of service who retires before this November’s election.
Until then, state representatives who served for that long could lock in insurance premiums while taxpayers paid between 75 percent of 100 percent of the cost to cover the lawmaker, his or her spouse, surviving spouse, divorced spouse or any dependent children for the rest of their lives.
bill.ruthhart@indystar.com
The Indiana Senate today modified its health care coverage to lessen the burden on Indiana taxpayers.
Under changes announced this morning, senators would have to pay more for their health coverage.
Health insurance will only apply to legislators who retire after the age of 50 with at least six years and one day of service in the legislature. Previously, health benefits applied to lawmakers of any age.
The move comes less than a month after the House simply eliminated the generous plan.
In January, House Speaker Brian C. Bosma, R-Indianapolis, revoked lifetime health benefits for state representatives.
That plan, which had been offered since 2002, still applies to about 25 retired legislators and anyone with six years and one day of service who retires before this November’s election.
Until then, state representatives who served for that long could lock in insurance premiums while taxpayers paid between 75 percent of 100 percent of the cost to cover the lawmaker, his or her spouse, surviving spouse, divorced spouse or any dependent children for the rest of their lives.
Senators to pay more for health insurance
By Bill Ruthhart
bill.ruthhart@indystar.com
The Indiana Senate today modified its health care coverage to lessen the burden on Indiana taxpayers.
Under changes announced this morning, senators would have to pay more for their health coverage.
Health insurance will only apply to legislators who retire after the age of 50 with at least six years and one day of service in the legislature. Previously, health benefits applied to lawmakers of any age.
The move comes less than a month after the House simply eliminated the generous plan.
In January, House Speaker Brian C. Bosma, R-Indianapolis, revoked lifetime health benefits for state representatives.
That plan, which had been offered since 2002, still applies to about 25 retired legislators and anyone with six years and one day of service who retires before this November’s election.
Until then, state representatives who served for that long could lock in insurance premiums while taxpayers paid between 75 percent of 100 percent of the cost to cover the lawmaker, his or her spouse, surviving spouse, divorced spouse or any dependent children for the rest of their lives.
bill.ruthhart@indystar.com
The Indiana Senate today modified its health care coverage to lessen the burden on Indiana taxpayers.
Under changes announced this morning, senators would have to pay more for their health coverage.
Health insurance will only apply to legislators who retire after the age of 50 with at least six years and one day of service in the legislature. Previously, health benefits applied to lawmakers of any age.
The move comes less than a month after the House simply eliminated the generous plan.
In January, House Speaker Brian C. Bosma, R-Indianapolis, revoked lifetime health benefits for state representatives.
That plan, which had been offered since 2002, still applies to about 25 retired legislators and anyone with six years and one day of service who retires before this November’s election.
Until then, state representatives who served for that long could lock in insurance premiums while taxpayers paid between 75 percent of 100 percent of the cost to cover the lawmaker, his or her spouse, surviving spouse, divorced spouse or any dependent children for the rest of their lives.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
City retirees to get health insurance rebate
From Chicago Sun Times
More than 24,000 retired city employees are in line for a $15 million to $20 million refund -- on the backs of Chicago taxpayers -- after being charged more for health insurance for the last 2-1/2 years than a court settlement allows.
On Tuesday, the Fraternal Order of Police filed a lawsuit demanding the rebate with interest for overcharges dating back to Aug. 1, 2003. That's when City Hall agreed to cover 55 percent of the cost of retiree health care for those who left the payroll before July 2005, with retirees and their pension funds making up the difference.
During contract talks that raised health-care contributions for active employees, the FOP discovered a substantial gap between projected medical expenses on which retiree contributions were based and the city's actual costs. In 2004 alone, the disparity was 9 percent, a $10 million overcharge.
'City is on the hook for $20 mil.'
"Some retirees have been overpaying to the tune of $90 or $100 a month. That's quite a bit of money for someone on a fixed income. Our projection is that the city is on the hook for $20 million," said Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue.
Unknown to the FOP, a refund "in the ballpark" of $20 million was already in the works, said Clinton Krislov, counsel for retirees engaged in a legal battle over health care that dates back to 1987.
"The FOP didn't need to do this. We were already working on it. We have been negotiating with the city for a long time and expect to be announcing a refund within the next few months. . . . It could well be hundreds of dollars" for the average retiree, he said.
"Health-care costs for these retirees were projected to increase faster than they did. As a result, premiums were set in amounts that resulted in the city paying less than the 55 percent minimum. I don't have any indication that they intentionally overcharged retirees. But that's why we contacted them many months ago and said we wanted a full reconciliation."
And just where is the city supposed to get the money?
"That will be the city's problem," Krislov said. "Is the money spent? I suppose it is."
Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle acknowledged that retirees were overcharged, but she pegged the gap at "closer to $15 million."
"Our contributions are based on projections. These numbers will periodically have to be reconciled.
"We've been aware of it for about a year. We're just trying to come up with the exact dollar amount and a means of ensuring that we make up whatever the difference is," Hoyle said.
The rebate is the latest twist in a long-running legal dispute over retiree health care.
In 1990, Mayor Daley proposed a health care "safety net" after an Illinois Appellate Court ruling curbed the city's required contribution to retiree health care. Under the agreement, retirees in a financial bind over soaring health- care premiums contributed no more than 15 percent of their monthly pension checks to medical care.
Health insurance to fall 20%
The guarantee continued until April 2003, when the two sides crafted a settlement designed to save taxpayers $8 million a year.
It nearly doubled monthly health insurance premiums for 22,000 retirees and deprived those who retire after 2013 of any guaranteed coverage at all. At the time, City Hall agreed to cover 55 percent of the cost of retiree health care, but only for current retirees and those who left the payroll before July 2005.
Now, government retirees who have endured a series of health- care bombshells are getting some good news for a change. Not only are rebate checks in the works: On March 1, retiree contributions are going down as much as 20 percent.
More than 24,000 retired city employees are in line for a $15 million to $20 million refund -- on the backs of Chicago taxpayers -- after being charged more for health insurance for the last 2-1/2 years than a court settlement allows.
On Tuesday, the Fraternal Order of Police filed a lawsuit demanding the rebate with interest for overcharges dating back to Aug. 1, 2003. That's when City Hall agreed to cover 55 percent of the cost of retiree health care for those who left the payroll before July 2005, with retirees and their pension funds making up the difference.
During contract talks that raised health-care contributions for active employees, the FOP discovered a substantial gap between projected medical expenses on which retiree contributions were based and the city's actual costs. In 2004 alone, the disparity was 9 percent, a $10 million overcharge.
'City is on the hook for $20 mil.'
"Some retirees have been overpaying to the tune of $90 or $100 a month. That's quite a bit of money for someone on a fixed income. Our projection is that the city is on the hook for $20 million," said Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue.
Unknown to the FOP, a refund "in the ballpark" of $20 million was already in the works, said Clinton Krislov, counsel for retirees engaged in a legal battle over health care that dates back to 1987.
"The FOP didn't need to do this. We were already working on it. We have been negotiating with the city for a long time and expect to be announcing a refund within the next few months. . . . It could well be hundreds of dollars" for the average retiree, he said.
"Health-care costs for these retirees were projected to increase faster than they did. As a result, premiums were set in amounts that resulted in the city paying less than the 55 percent minimum. I don't have any indication that they intentionally overcharged retirees. But that's why we contacted them many months ago and said we wanted a full reconciliation."
And just where is the city supposed to get the money?
"That will be the city's problem," Krislov said. "Is the money spent? I suppose it is."
Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle acknowledged that retirees were overcharged, but she pegged the gap at "closer to $15 million."
"Our contributions are based on projections. These numbers will periodically have to be reconciled.
"We've been aware of it for about a year. We're just trying to come up with the exact dollar amount and a means of ensuring that we make up whatever the difference is," Hoyle said.
The rebate is the latest twist in a long-running legal dispute over retiree health care.
In 1990, Mayor Daley proposed a health care "safety net" after an Illinois Appellate Court ruling curbed the city's required contribution to retiree health care. Under the agreement, retirees in a financial bind over soaring health- care premiums contributed no more than 15 percent of their monthly pension checks to medical care.
Health insurance to fall 20%
The guarantee continued until April 2003, when the two sides crafted a settlement designed to save taxpayers $8 million a year.
It nearly doubled monthly health insurance premiums for 22,000 retirees and deprived those who retire after 2013 of any guaranteed coverage at all. At the time, City Hall agreed to cover 55 percent of the cost of retiree health care, but only for current retirees and those who left the payroll before July 2005.
Now, government retirees who have endured a series of health- care bombshells are getting some good news for a change. Not only are rebate checks in the works: On March 1, retiree contributions are going down as much as 20 percent.
Texas Auto Insurance
From DailyIndia.com
Texas has mandatory laws governing the operation of a vehicle on the roads. All Texas drivers must carry Texas auto insurance liability limts of at least:
$20,000 Bodily Injury Per Person
$40,000 Bodily Injury Per Accident
$15,000 Property Damage Liability
Q. What does “Bodily Injury Per Person” Mean?
A: Bodily Injury Per Person means that when you hit someone in an accident, and it is found to be your fault. Your Texas auto insurance policy must indemnify (pay) the injured party for any bodily injuries they may substain in the accident. Texas auto insurance laws require that you must carry liability limits of at least $20,000 per person injured in an accident.
Q. What does “Bodily Injury Per Accident” Mean?
A: Bodily Injury Per Accident is the amount your auto insurance policy must indemnify (pay) the injured parties (more than one person) for any bodily injuries they may substain in the accident. This is the TOTAL amount of bodily injuries, death, hospitalization your policy must cover to drive legally in Texas. Texas auto insurance laws require that you must carry liability limits of at least $40,000 per accident injured in an accident.
Q. What does “Property Damage Liability” Mean?
A. Property damage liability is the amount of money the insurance company is legally obligated to pay damaged parties for repairs to their automobiles in the event of an accident where the insured was found to be at fault.
Texas has mandatory laws governing the operation of a vehicle on the roads. All Texas drivers must carry Texas auto insurance liability limts of at least:
$20,000 Bodily Injury Per Person
$40,000 Bodily Injury Per Accident
$15,000 Property Damage Liability
Q. What does “Bodily Injury Per Person” Mean?
A: Bodily Injury Per Person means that when you hit someone in an accident, and it is found to be your fault. Your Texas auto insurance policy must indemnify (pay) the injured party for any bodily injuries they may substain in the accident. Texas auto insurance laws require that you must carry liability limits of at least $20,000 per person injured in an accident.
Q. What does “Bodily Injury Per Accident” Mean?
A: Bodily Injury Per Accident is the amount your auto insurance policy must indemnify (pay) the injured parties (more than one person) for any bodily injuries they may substain in the accident. This is the TOTAL amount of bodily injuries, death, hospitalization your policy must cover to drive legally in Texas. Texas auto insurance laws require that you must carry liability limits of at least $40,000 per accident injured in an accident.
Q. What does “Property Damage Liability” Mean?
A. Property damage liability is the amount of money the insurance company is legally obligated to pay damaged parties for repairs to their automobiles in the event of an accident where the insured was found to be at fault.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Health Savings Accounts meet skepticism
By JESSICA ADLER
HERALD NEWS
Here are three little words some say could be the next big thing in insurance coverage: health savings accounts.
Maybe you've heard of them. Perhaps your company offered them on the menu of benefit options for 2006. Or you might remember the term from President Bush's recent State of the Union address: Expanding health savings accounts, he said, is one way to "make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage."
While critics of HSAs call them a passing fad, only beneficial for a select few, others say that over the next five years, they could catch on with the same momentum as HMOs and PPOs did in the 1990s.
There are few things as boring or complicated as sorting through the details of health insurance plans. But health savings accounts are worth getting to know, since more and more companies are offering them to employees. If you haven't faced the option of signing up for an HSA yet, you may soon. What are they? Could one be good for you? Could they help the country's ailing health-care system?
Coupled with a high-deductible insurance plan, health savings accounts allow people to save money tax-free for medical expenses. Many large insurance companies – Aetna, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cigna, to name a few – have begun offering high-deductible insurance plans with HSAs since the model was legalized in New Jersey in January 2005, one year after it was approved by the federal government.
The insurance companies administer the plans, which in 2006 come with deductibles of $1,050 to $3,000 for singles and $2,100 to $6,000 for families. Financial companies such as JP Morgan Chase administer the HSAs, accounts that work almost like 401(k)s: Workers and employers can contribute to them annually (in 2006, a maximum of $2,700 for individual coverage and $5,450 for family coverage). Beneficiaries can put HSA money toward medical costs, including the plan deductible. Any unused money can be carried over from year to year and job to job.
In 2005, 2.3 percent of companies providing health insurance to 810,000 employees nationwide offered HSA-compatible plans. That number has probably doubled since the 2006 enrollment period, says Paul Fronstin, director of the Health Research and Education Program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization based in Washington, D.C. A small number of those businesses, Fronstin said, offer high-deductible plans with HSAs as their only insurance option.
There are now 3 million people enrolled in HSA-compatible high-deductible plans, triple the number enrolled just 10 months ago, according to a January report from America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association for companies offering such plans. Only about half of those enrollees, Fronstin estimates, have contributed, raising the concern that workers could be signing up for the high-deductible plans because they appear to be the cheapest option available, and not because of the appeal of establishing health savings accounts.
"I'm not convinced this is going to be the long-term solution we need to rising health-care costs, but it may be an exercise we need to go through," Fronstin said. "It could lead to something very beneficial -- more information for people regarding cost and quality"
That's part of the promise of HSAs, advocates say.
"The consumer becomes more aware of the cost of their medical care," said Dan Fogleman, spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which began offering HSAs to its 1.3 million U.S. employees in January. "It's not just $20 (for a co-pay) to go to a doctor. You understand that it may cost $100 to $120 to go to that doctor. Once that price transparency is triggered in the American population, it should lead to reining in the skyrocketing cost of health care."
Not to mention that high-deductible plans coupled with HSAs could save employers money. In 2005, such plans saved firms about $1,000 per individual and $200 per family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's Survey of Employer-Sponsored Benefits, because the companies are responsible for a lower portion of the premiums.
Health insurance premiums increased 73 percent between 2000 and 2005, far exceeding the national inflation and wage growth rates, the Kaiser report said. During the same period, the percentage of employers offering benefits fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. As costs have become increasingly unmanageable, companies that continue to offer benefits have asked employees to shoulder more of the cost, and high-deductible plans have become more popular. HSAs could make those plans more appealing, some say.
"It's a good way for employers to save money and it's a good way for healthy, relatively wealthy people to save money, but I'm not sure it's particularly good for the rest of the country," said Pat Schoeni, executive director of the National Coalition on Health Care, based in Washington, D.C.
The majority of Americans cannot afford to pay a deductible of more than $1,000, in addition to contributing money to a health savings account, she said.
"As an insurance product, there's nothing wrong with HSAs. They're good for some people – younger and healthy people who don't expect to get sick and don't expect to have to go to the doctor too often. But they are not a panacea. The bulk of the 45 million people without insurance will not be able to afford HSAs."
In fact, the high-deductible plans attract relatively wealthy workers, according to a January report from the Government Accountability Office. More than 43 percent of federal employees who signed up for one earned salaries of $75,000 or more, compared to 23 percent of those in all federal health insurance plans, the report said.
Schoeni discounts the claim that high-deductible plans and HSAs will drive down health-care costs.
"Health care is not a commodity. There's not much data to help you price-search. You can call up and ask how much a doctor charges for an office visit. But once you're there, you don't say, 'Don't do this test; I've got to see who gives me a better deal first.'"
Instead, she said, people with HSAs, who are responsible for the bulk of up-front health-care costs could be deterred from seeking preventive care. A report released this month by the Employee Benefit Research Institute confirms her fears: About 30 percent of those enrolled in high-deductible health plans reported delaying or avoiding care, compared with 17 percent in comprehensive health plans.
"It might prevent you from getting a mammogram because you say, 'Oh, gosh, that's going to come out of my pocket and maybe I'll wait -- I can't afford to pay $100 out of my pocket this week or this month; I'll have to wait until next month or the month after.'"
But companies in and around northern New Jersey, eager to find an affordable way to provide health care, have been quick to adopt the model, said John Lawrence, vice president of Aetna's sales and service for middle-market operation in the metro New York area. This year, almost half of Lawrence's 40 new clients -- companies with 300 to 3,000 employees – opted to offer HSAs.
"The interest continues to peak and the expectation is that we will continue to see the adoption rate of HSAs continue to grow at a much quicker pace as we go into January of 2007," Lawrence said, adding that the new model has caught on at a quicker rate than HMOs and PPOs did in the 1990s.
Thus far, smaller companies – those with three to 300 employees – have been slower to make the change.
"A lot end up not taking it, because they don't understand it," said Joe Altomare, president of Wayne-based Altomare Financial Group Inc., which advises small and mid-sized New Jersey businesses about benefits options.
Less than 5 percent of Altomare's 2,000 clients offered HSAs to employees in the 2006 enrollment period, he estimates. Many haven't looked past some deterrents, Altomare said. Some employers feel obligated to contribute seed money to health savings accounts – anywhere from $200 to $500 or so -- as an incentive for employees to enroll in the corresponding high-deductible plans. Considering that, many don't see a substantial enough savings to offer the plans, he said.
Plus, for companies both small and large, employee reaction can be a concern.
High-deductible plans and HSAs "are popular and gaining in popularity, but change is difficult," said Jim Nelson, director of human resources for Marcal Paper Mills Inc. in Elmwood Park, which doesn't intend to offer an HSA anytime soon. "I think employees would probably look at it with some skepticism," he said.
Health savings accounts in brief
A Health Savings Account (HSA) is an account that you can put money into in order to save for future medical expenses. There are certain advantages to putting money into these accounts, including tax savings, though public health advocates warn they are not a panacea. HSAs were signed into law by President Bush as part of the Medicare Modernization Act on Dec. 8, 2003.
Adults can contribute to an HSA if they have coverage under an HSA-qualified "high-deductible health plan" – with deductibles of $1,000 for individual coverage and $2,000 for families -- and have no other types of health insurance. (Specific injury insurance or accident, disability, dental care, vision care or long-term care insurance are permitted.) Medicare beneficiaries and dependents cannot establish HSAs.
Contributions to your HSA can be made by you, your employer or both. The total contributions are limited annually.
You can make a contribution to your HSA each year that you are eligible. In 2006, contributions cannot exceed $2,650 for individual coverage and $5,250 for families. If you make a contribution, you can deduct the contributions when completing your federal income tax return.
You can use the money in the account to pay for any "qualified medical expense" permitted under federal tax law. This includes most medical care and services, dental and vision care, and over-the-counter drugs such as aspirin.
HERALD NEWS
Here are three little words some say could be the next big thing in insurance coverage: health savings accounts.
Maybe you've heard of them. Perhaps your company offered them on the menu of benefit options for 2006. Or you might remember the term from President Bush's recent State of the Union address: Expanding health savings accounts, he said, is one way to "make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage."
While critics of HSAs call them a passing fad, only beneficial for a select few, others say that over the next five years, they could catch on with the same momentum as HMOs and PPOs did in the 1990s.
There are few things as boring or complicated as sorting through the details of health insurance plans. But health savings accounts are worth getting to know, since more and more companies are offering them to employees. If you haven't faced the option of signing up for an HSA yet, you may soon. What are they? Could one be good for you? Could they help the country's ailing health-care system?
Coupled with a high-deductible insurance plan, health savings accounts allow people to save money tax-free for medical expenses. Many large insurance companies – Aetna, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cigna, to name a few – have begun offering high-deductible insurance plans with HSAs since the model was legalized in New Jersey in January 2005, one year after it was approved by the federal government.
The insurance companies administer the plans, which in 2006 come with deductibles of $1,050 to $3,000 for singles and $2,100 to $6,000 for families. Financial companies such as JP Morgan Chase administer the HSAs, accounts that work almost like 401(k)s: Workers and employers can contribute to them annually (in 2006, a maximum of $2,700 for individual coverage and $5,450 for family coverage). Beneficiaries can put HSA money toward medical costs, including the plan deductible. Any unused money can be carried over from year to year and job to job.
In 2005, 2.3 percent of companies providing health insurance to 810,000 employees nationwide offered HSA-compatible plans. That number has probably doubled since the 2006 enrollment period, says Paul Fronstin, director of the Health Research and Education Program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization based in Washington, D.C. A small number of those businesses, Fronstin said, offer high-deductible plans with HSAs as their only insurance option.
There are now 3 million people enrolled in HSA-compatible high-deductible plans, triple the number enrolled just 10 months ago, according to a January report from America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association for companies offering such plans. Only about half of those enrollees, Fronstin estimates, have contributed, raising the concern that workers could be signing up for the high-deductible plans because they appear to be the cheapest option available, and not because of the appeal of establishing health savings accounts.
"I'm not convinced this is going to be the long-term solution we need to rising health-care costs, but it may be an exercise we need to go through," Fronstin said. "It could lead to something very beneficial -- more information for people regarding cost and quality"
That's part of the promise of HSAs, advocates say.
"The consumer becomes more aware of the cost of their medical care," said Dan Fogleman, spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which began offering HSAs to its 1.3 million U.S. employees in January. "It's not just $20 (for a co-pay) to go to a doctor. You understand that it may cost $100 to $120 to go to that doctor. Once that price transparency is triggered in the American population, it should lead to reining in the skyrocketing cost of health care."
Not to mention that high-deductible plans coupled with HSAs could save employers money. In 2005, such plans saved firms about $1,000 per individual and $200 per family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's Survey of Employer-Sponsored Benefits, because the companies are responsible for a lower portion of the premiums.
Health insurance premiums increased 73 percent between 2000 and 2005, far exceeding the national inflation and wage growth rates, the Kaiser report said. During the same period, the percentage of employers offering benefits fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. As costs have become increasingly unmanageable, companies that continue to offer benefits have asked employees to shoulder more of the cost, and high-deductible plans have become more popular. HSAs could make those plans more appealing, some say.
"It's a good way for employers to save money and it's a good way for healthy, relatively wealthy people to save money, but I'm not sure it's particularly good for the rest of the country," said Pat Schoeni, executive director of the National Coalition on Health Care, based in Washington, D.C.
The majority of Americans cannot afford to pay a deductible of more than $1,000, in addition to contributing money to a health savings account, she said.
"As an insurance product, there's nothing wrong with HSAs. They're good for some people – younger and healthy people who don't expect to get sick and don't expect to have to go to the doctor too often. But they are not a panacea. The bulk of the 45 million people without insurance will not be able to afford HSAs."
In fact, the high-deductible plans attract relatively wealthy workers, according to a January report from the Government Accountability Office. More than 43 percent of federal employees who signed up for one earned salaries of $75,000 or more, compared to 23 percent of those in all federal health insurance plans, the report said.
Schoeni discounts the claim that high-deductible plans and HSAs will drive down health-care costs.
"Health care is not a commodity. There's not much data to help you price-search. You can call up and ask how much a doctor charges for an office visit. But once you're there, you don't say, 'Don't do this test; I've got to see who gives me a better deal first.'"
Instead, she said, people with HSAs, who are responsible for the bulk of up-front health-care costs could be deterred from seeking preventive care. A report released this month by the Employee Benefit Research Institute confirms her fears: About 30 percent of those enrolled in high-deductible health plans reported delaying or avoiding care, compared with 17 percent in comprehensive health plans.
"It might prevent you from getting a mammogram because you say, 'Oh, gosh, that's going to come out of my pocket and maybe I'll wait -- I can't afford to pay $100 out of my pocket this week or this month; I'll have to wait until next month or the month after.'"
But companies in and around northern New Jersey, eager to find an affordable way to provide health care, have been quick to adopt the model, said John Lawrence, vice president of Aetna's sales and service for middle-market operation in the metro New York area. This year, almost half of Lawrence's 40 new clients -- companies with 300 to 3,000 employees – opted to offer HSAs.
"The interest continues to peak and the expectation is that we will continue to see the adoption rate of HSAs continue to grow at a much quicker pace as we go into January of 2007," Lawrence said, adding that the new model has caught on at a quicker rate than HMOs and PPOs did in the 1990s.
Thus far, smaller companies – those with three to 300 employees – have been slower to make the change.
"A lot end up not taking it, because they don't understand it," said Joe Altomare, president of Wayne-based Altomare Financial Group Inc., which advises small and mid-sized New Jersey businesses about benefits options.
Less than 5 percent of Altomare's 2,000 clients offered HSAs to employees in the 2006 enrollment period, he estimates. Many haven't looked past some deterrents, Altomare said. Some employers feel obligated to contribute seed money to health savings accounts – anywhere from $200 to $500 or so -- as an incentive for employees to enroll in the corresponding high-deductible plans. Considering that, many don't see a substantial enough savings to offer the plans, he said.
Plus, for companies both small and large, employee reaction can be a concern.
High-deductible plans and HSAs "are popular and gaining in popularity, but change is difficult," said Jim Nelson, director of human resources for Marcal Paper Mills Inc. in Elmwood Park, which doesn't intend to offer an HSA anytime soon. "I think employees would probably look at it with some skepticism," he said.
Health savings accounts in brief
A Health Savings Account (HSA) is an account that you can put money into in order to save for future medical expenses. There are certain advantages to putting money into these accounts, including tax savings, though public health advocates warn they are not a panacea. HSAs were signed into law by President Bush as part of the Medicare Modernization Act on Dec. 8, 2003.
Adults can contribute to an HSA if they have coverage under an HSA-qualified "high-deductible health plan" – with deductibles of $1,000 for individual coverage and $2,000 for families -- and have no other types of health insurance. (Specific injury insurance or accident, disability, dental care, vision care or long-term care insurance are permitted.) Medicare beneficiaries and dependents cannot establish HSAs.
Contributions to your HSA can be made by you, your employer or both. The total contributions are limited annually.
You can make a contribution to your HSA each year that you are eligible. In 2006, contributions cannot exceed $2,650 for individual coverage and $5,250 for families. If you make a contribution, you can deduct the contributions when completing your federal income tax return.
You can use the money in the account to pay for any "qualified medical expense" permitted under federal tax law. This includes most medical care and services, dental and vision care, and over-the-counter drugs such as aspirin.
AIG Auto Insurance Lowers Rates in Colorado; New Auto Insurance Rates Will Result in Savings for Thousands of Colorado Drivers
Press release
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 13, 2006--AIG Auto Insurance today announced it would lower auto insurance costs for thousands of policyholders in Colorado. Beginning today, AIG Auto Insurance will implement a five percent rate decrease for auto insurance in Colorado, lowering auto insurance costs on over 10,000 vehicles and resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of savings for Colorado drivers insured by The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, and Commerce and Industry Insurance Company.
"As the fastest-growing name in auto insurance, AIG Auto Insurance is able to deliver responsive service at competitive prices for our customers," said Tony DeSantis, President of AIG Marketing, Inc., the direct marketing division responsible for AIG Auto Insurance. "We look forward to working with Colorado drivers to provide insurance coverage that meets their needs and provides a cost effective alternative to other auto insurers in the Rocky Mountains."
AIG Auto Insurance, the fastest-growing name in auto insurance, consistently provides consumers with the opportunity to save on their auto coverages without sacrificing service. With over 1 million policyholders underwritten by member companies of American International Group, Inc. (AIG), AIG Auto Insurance representatives are available 24-hours-a-day, 7 days a week. In addition, www.aigauto.com delivers on-line sales, service and claims reporting made easy.
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 13, 2006--AIG Auto Insurance today announced it would lower auto insurance costs for thousands of policyholders in Colorado. Beginning today, AIG Auto Insurance will implement a five percent rate decrease for auto insurance in Colorado, lowering auto insurance costs on over 10,000 vehicles and resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of savings for Colorado drivers insured by The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, and Commerce and Industry Insurance Company.
"As the fastest-growing name in auto insurance, AIG Auto Insurance is able to deliver responsive service at competitive prices for our customers," said Tony DeSantis, President of AIG Marketing, Inc., the direct marketing division responsible for AIG Auto Insurance. "We look forward to working with Colorado drivers to provide insurance coverage that meets their needs and provides a cost effective alternative to other auto insurers in the Rocky Mountains."
AIG Auto Insurance, the fastest-growing name in auto insurance, consistently provides consumers with the opportunity to save on their auto coverages without sacrificing service. With over 1 million policyholders underwritten by member companies of American International Group, Inc. (AIG), AIG Auto Insurance representatives are available 24-hours-a-day, 7 days a week. In addition, www.aigauto.com delivers on-line sales, service and claims reporting made easy.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Lack of health plans a worrisome trend
By PATRICIA NORRIS
AnnaRosa Rotundo of Holyoke thought she had it made when she was hired as a medical assistant with full benefits at the University of Massachusetts three years ago.
For $100 a week, the 35-year-old mother of four was able to cover her entire family under the university's insurance plan.
Then she got laid off - an unexpected detour that has left her on a sixth-month odyssey to find another job with health-care coverage while her children's care is shifted to the Medicaid rolls.
Rotundo's story is not unusual.
Companies reducing employee health plans or failing to offer them in general are becoming more common, forcing many families to do without or rely on the government for assistance.
Friendly Corp. in Wilbraham garnered statewide ire last month after it reduced health care benefits for 129 restaurant workers in Massachusetts, a move that was criticized by labor figures and sparked protests at both ends of the state. Friendly, Wal-Mart and Stop & Shop are among the companies in the state with the highest number of employees receiving health coverage from Medicaid, according to the office of Health and Human Services. Wal-Mart topped the list with 2,866 people who relied on MassHealth or the state's free care pool. The estimated taxpayer cost to provide health care to those workers and their dependents: $7.9 million.
Stop & Shop was second with 2,737 workers who either were enrolled in MassHealth or utilized the state's uncompensated care pool. Friendly was 11th on the list with 886 employees utilizing public benefits.
"(The disinvestment) trend is definitely worrisome to us. Some of the things we are hearing from clients that is taking place out there ... Employers are reducing worker hours so they no longer qualify for full-time benefits, or the employers have increased the employee share of the health plan up to an extent where it is no longer affordable," said Sonia Bouvier, director of Hampshire Health Connect, a service that helps connect the uninsured with supplementary coverage at Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton.
At the state level, the battle to make everyone pay their health-care share is becoming more desperate as businesses, many who are legitimately flailing with insurance expenses, reduce plans or cost-shift by adding such things as higher co-pays for their employees, while the uninsured rack up more costly medical bills after being unable to afford preventive care.
The state legislature and Gov. W. Mitt Romney are championing plans to get more Massachusetts residents insured, but no one can seem to agree how to pay for the measure, according to legislators.
The House has proposed small businesses - those with more than 10 and up to 99 employees - pay a 5 percent payroll tax, among other things, to offset funding. Those small businesses who offer health insurance would get that tax money back from the state, according to state Rep. John Scibak, D-South Hadley. That plan is backed by health care advocates such as Health Care for All.
The Senate bill for coverage does not include the tax but would make employers with more than 50 employees pay medical bills for uninsured workers. Both Romney and the House plan would also mandate that everyone have health insurance in the same way everyone who drives a car has car insurance.
The two legislative bodies are haggling over a compromise in a conference committee but time is running out, according to Scibak. The state spent $213 million during the 2005 fiscal year to pay for the health care of about 160,000 employees and their dependents covered under MassHealth, the state Medicaid program, including free care provided by hospitals - about four times what the state estimated last year. Some employees also opted for state care rather than their company-offered subsidized plans if they qualified.
If Massachusetts does not deal with the more than 400,000 uninsured people in the state, millions of federal dollars are at stake, Scibak said.
"We are in jeopardy of losing $385 million dollars in federal money. That is what is on the table here. The government has already begun reducing (Medicaid) money to other states who are not pursuing this issue aggressively," Scibak said. "That is why the clock is ticking. They (the feds) were hoping we would have had a plan in place by Feb. 1."
But Christopher P. Geehern, executive vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said neither bill will reduce health care costs for employers.
"They address the expansion of coverage, but there is nothing in there that will reduce costs, and this is hurting a lot of employers," said Geehern, whose organization represents 7,600 businesses, most of whom are against the payroll tax but continue to offer some benefits to their employees. "... There is a point of financial no return," he said.
John McDonough, executive director of the reform group Health Care for All, said companies would do well to look to their brothers in business who don't offer plans, pocket sizable profits and then drive up costs for everyone because they have left their employees to get care on the taxpayer's dime.
"It comes down to a question of fairness. Why should employers who are paying steeply to cover their workers pay extra to finance coverage for employers who don't cover their workers? Why should the taxpayers pay more?" he asked. "Most employers continue to provide decent coverage for the workers. Some do because they have to and some do because they cannot imagine not doing it."
Part of the reason that money makers such as Wal-Mart have so many employees relying on the state for care is that the labor movement has weakened considerably, according to Michael Meeropol, chairman of the economic department at Western New England College in Springfield.
Although Wal-Mart may offer health insurance to its full-time workers and extend it to their part-time force, that does not always mean it pays wages that would allow workers to afford its plan. According to the Massachusetts Public Health Assistance report, "Many employees report cost as the primary factor in declining offered coverage." The same report did detail that many employers offered subsidies (the median subsidy is 77 percent) that were usually reasonable - $80 a month for an individual plan and $239 for a family plan.
"Unions are disappearing," said Meeropol. Such labor organizations often negotiated better pay and better benefits, he said.
Where the United States was once "top dog in economics between 1945 and 1970s, we stopped being king of the hill," Meeropol said. Changes in competition overseas, among other issues, have changed the business landscape here, he said. With that economic shift, the social compact between employer and employee eroded.
AnnaRosa Rotundo of Holyoke thought she had it made when she was hired as a medical assistant with full benefits at the University of Massachusetts three years ago.
For $100 a week, the 35-year-old mother of four was able to cover her entire family under the university's insurance plan.
Then she got laid off - an unexpected detour that has left her on a sixth-month odyssey to find another job with health-care coverage while her children's care is shifted to the Medicaid rolls.
Rotundo's story is not unusual.
Companies reducing employee health plans or failing to offer them in general are becoming more common, forcing many families to do without or rely on the government for assistance.
Friendly Corp. in Wilbraham garnered statewide ire last month after it reduced health care benefits for 129 restaurant workers in Massachusetts, a move that was criticized by labor figures and sparked protests at both ends of the state. Friendly, Wal-Mart and Stop & Shop are among the companies in the state with the highest number of employees receiving health coverage from Medicaid, according to the office of Health and Human Services. Wal-Mart topped the list with 2,866 people who relied on MassHealth or the state's free care pool. The estimated taxpayer cost to provide health care to those workers and their dependents: $7.9 million.
Stop & Shop was second with 2,737 workers who either were enrolled in MassHealth or utilized the state's uncompensated care pool. Friendly was 11th on the list with 886 employees utilizing public benefits.
"(The disinvestment) trend is definitely worrisome to us. Some of the things we are hearing from clients that is taking place out there ... Employers are reducing worker hours so they no longer qualify for full-time benefits, or the employers have increased the employee share of the health plan up to an extent where it is no longer affordable," said Sonia Bouvier, director of Hampshire Health Connect, a service that helps connect the uninsured with supplementary coverage at Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton.
At the state level, the battle to make everyone pay their health-care share is becoming more desperate as businesses, many who are legitimately flailing with insurance expenses, reduce plans or cost-shift by adding such things as higher co-pays for their employees, while the uninsured rack up more costly medical bills after being unable to afford preventive care.
The state legislature and Gov. W. Mitt Romney are championing plans to get more Massachusetts residents insured, but no one can seem to agree how to pay for the measure, according to legislators.
The House has proposed small businesses - those with more than 10 and up to 99 employees - pay a 5 percent payroll tax, among other things, to offset funding. Those small businesses who offer health insurance would get that tax money back from the state, according to state Rep. John Scibak, D-South Hadley. That plan is backed by health care advocates such as Health Care for All.
The Senate bill for coverage does not include the tax but would make employers with more than 50 employees pay medical bills for uninsured workers. Both Romney and the House plan would also mandate that everyone have health insurance in the same way everyone who drives a car has car insurance.
The two legislative bodies are haggling over a compromise in a conference committee but time is running out, according to Scibak. The state spent $213 million during the 2005 fiscal year to pay for the health care of about 160,000 employees and their dependents covered under MassHealth, the state Medicaid program, including free care provided by hospitals - about four times what the state estimated last year. Some employees also opted for state care rather than their company-offered subsidized plans if they qualified.
If Massachusetts does not deal with the more than 400,000 uninsured people in the state, millions of federal dollars are at stake, Scibak said.
"We are in jeopardy of losing $385 million dollars in federal money. That is what is on the table here. The government has already begun reducing (Medicaid) money to other states who are not pursuing this issue aggressively," Scibak said. "That is why the clock is ticking. They (the feds) were hoping we would have had a plan in place by Feb. 1."
But Christopher P. Geehern, executive vice president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said neither bill will reduce health care costs for employers.
"They address the expansion of coverage, but there is nothing in there that will reduce costs, and this is hurting a lot of employers," said Geehern, whose organization represents 7,600 businesses, most of whom are against the payroll tax but continue to offer some benefits to their employees. "... There is a point of financial no return," he said.
John McDonough, executive director of the reform group Health Care for All, said companies would do well to look to their brothers in business who don't offer plans, pocket sizable profits and then drive up costs for everyone because they have left their employees to get care on the taxpayer's dime.
"It comes down to a question of fairness. Why should employers who are paying steeply to cover their workers pay extra to finance coverage for employers who don't cover their workers? Why should the taxpayers pay more?" he asked. "Most employers continue to provide decent coverage for the workers. Some do because they have to and some do because they cannot imagine not doing it."
Part of the reason that money makers such as Wal-Mart have so many employees relying on the state for care is that the labor movement has weakened considerably, according to Michael Meeropol, chairman of the economic department at Western New England College in Springfield.
Although Wal-Mart may offer health insurance to its full-time workers and extend it to their part-time force, that does not always mean it pays wages that would allow workers to afford its plan. According to the Massachusetts Public Health Assistance report, "Many employees report cost as the primary factor in declining offered coverage." The same report did detail that many employers offered subsidies (the median subsidy is 77 percent) that were usually reasonable - $80 a month for an individual plan and $239 for a family plan.
"Unions are disappearing," said Meeropol. Such labor organizations often negotiated better pay and better benefits, he said.
Where the United States was once "top dog in economics between 1945 and 1970s, we stopped being king of the hill," Meeropol said. Changes in competition overseas, among other issues, have changed the business landscape here, he said. With that economic shift, the social compact between employer and employee eroded.
Solutions to health insurance crisis
Houston Chronicle
It's an idea whose time has arrived: doing something to effectively deal with the high number of Texans who don't have health insurance. Dan Wolterman [the chief executive of the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System] has a plan to begin a pilot program for 25,000 Harris County residents, and this is a step in the right direction (see the Feb. 8 Chronicle article "Houston hospital exec speaks on reform / His proposal involves monthly premiums of $50 for people, employers").
The fact that one in three of our neighbors are without health insurance is unacceptable, and, unfortunately, the numbers are growing daily.
It is not a question of lacking financial resources, because the United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on its medical care.
We have the money, but millions of our fellow citizens are still left out.
Another problem is that the cost to the insured and their employers has created a negative impact when it comes to competition in international sales — just ask any economist that understands foreign competition.
The challenge is to figure out how to keep people well, and to provide health care for those who really need it.
The emergency room is no place to practice preventive medicine.
There is an American solution to our health care crisis, and I see it being successfully designed and implemented by Texans.
It's an idea whose time has arrived: doing something to effectively deal with the high number of Texans who don't have health insurance. Dan Wolterman [the chief executive of the Memorial Hermann Healthcare System] has a plan to begin a pilot program for 25,000 Harris County residents, and this is a step in the right direction (see the Feb. 8 Chronicle article "Houston hospital exec speaks on reform / His proposal involves monthly premiums of $50 for people, employers").
The fact that one in three of our neighbors are without health insurance is unacceptable, and, unfortunately, the numbers are growing daily.
It is not a question of lacking financial resources, because the United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on its medical care.
We have the money, but millions of our fellow citizens are still left out.
Another problem is that the cost to the insured and their employers has created a negative impact when it comes to competition in international sales — just ask any economist that understands foreign competition.
The challenge is to figure out how to keep people well, and to provide health care for those who really need it.
The emergency room is no place to practice preventive medicine.
There is an American solution to our health care crisis, and I see it being successfully designed and implemented by Texans.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Bush's Rx for health insurance: Buy your own
From Chicago Tribune
John McCarron
Published February 10, 2006
Say good-bye to your group health insurance.
OK, maybe not right away. Your employer may stick with your plan for a few more years. Don't toss out that health-care card just yet.
But if you've been following the business news lately, and if you paid close attention--very close attention--to President Bush's State of the Union address, you may hear a distant knell for the way most Americans get their health insurance.
General Motors, which spends more on health care for its workers than on steel, announced that it will cap spending on health insurance for salaried employees. Any future cost increases--and costs have been rising by double digits--will be borne by employees paying higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays.
That's not so drastic, really, when you consider big outfits like GM, where labor contracts set a high standard, have offered employees some of the nation's best benefits. But it does signal that the cost-sharing arrangement between employers and employees--you pay half, we pay half (or some such split)--is going the way of the defined-benefit pension. Remember the defined-benefit pension?
Then again, GM had little choice but to unhook from the great medical money machine here in Viagra Nation. The company must compete globally, as must all U.S. manufacturers. Compete for investors, too, in a world where you can buy the stock of Honda or Toyota as easily as Ford or GM.
So the race is on to limit corporate exposure to runaway health insurance costs. And sure enough, President Bush has a plan.
In his address, the president said government has a responsibility to "help people afford the insurance coverage they need." The way to do that, his aides later explained, is to "level the playing field" so folks who buy their own insurance get as good a deal as folks who join their company's plan.
Sounds reasonable. But details of the proposal, released by the Treasury Department, are causing quite a stir among the fraternity of insurance wonks who understand the implications.
Bush proposes a supercharged version of the health savings accounts, or HSAs, that Congress first authorized in 2003. Think of HSAs as an individual retirement account for health-care expenses. The way it works now, workers who choose "high-deductible" plans--plans that require patients to pay the first $1,500 or more out-of-pocket--are eligible to make tax-deductible contributions--up to $5,450 a year in a family plan--to an HSA and later use that money to pay uncovered medical expenses.
Bush would let that family sock away $10,500 per year tax-free. Moreover, they could claim a tax credit equal to 15.3 percent of the amount they deposited. But it gets sweeter. If the worker buys his own high-deductible insurance policy, rather than one offered at work, the premiums he pays would be fully tax-deductible and eligible for the 15.3 percent tax credit.
It's all very complicated, but the bottom line is that relatively healthy people who can afford to set aside 10 grand a year would come out ahead by opening an HSA and buying their own insurance. After all, most employees cannot deduct the premiums they pay for their group plans, much less claim a refundable credit.
So what's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with encouraging workers, and their employers, to opt out of group insurance and go it alone ... with large amounts of help from Uncle Sam?
Plenty, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based think tank. You can read its analysis online (www.cbpp.org), but an abbreviated list of horribles goes like this:
- If, as expected, the healthiest and wealthiest leave the group insurance pool, premiums will shoot up for the not-so-healthy and not-so-wealthy. That's if they can find a plan that will take them. What insurance company is going to want your diabetic wife or disabled child?
- If, as expected, small-business owners, many of whom earn too much to qualify for a tax-deductible IRA, opt for the Bush HSA, which has no income limits, won't many owners simply do away with their company's group plan altogether? What's good for the boss must be good for the workers, right?
- If, as the free-market theorists predict, people with high deductibles "shop around" for bargain health care and forgo "unnecessary" care, how are folks to decide what and when care is necessary, much less where they'll get the most for their money? Surf the Internet? Thumb the Yellow Pages? So much for your primary-care physician and his or her trusted referral network of specialists.
No, what we have here is another Texas "two-fer," a combo better than $3 gasoline and lower taxes on capital gains. What we have here is the fig leaf behind which corporate America will walk away from group health insurance, along with the sweetest tax shelter ever invented for the fortunate few with six-figure incomes.
RIP, group health insurance.
John McCarron
Published February 10, 2006
Say good-bye to your group health insurance.
OK, maybe not right away. Your employer may stick with your plan for a few more years. Don't toss out that health-care card just yet.
But if you've been following the business news lately, and if you paid close attention--very close attention--to President Bush's State of the Union address, you may hear a distant knell for the way most Americans get their health insurance.
General Motors, which spends more on health care for its workers than on steel, announced that it will cap spending on health insurance for salaried employees. Any future cost increases--and costs have been rising by double digits--will be borne by employees paying higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays.
That's not so drastic, really, when you consider big outfits like GM, where labor contracts set a high standard, have offered employees some of the nation's best benefits. But it does signal that the cost-sharing arrangement between employers and employees--you pay half, we pay half (or some such split)--is going the way of the defined-benefit pension. Remember the defined-benefit pension?
Then again, GM had little choice but to unhook from the great medical money machine here in Viagra Nation. The company must compete globally, as must all U.S. manufacturers. Compete for investors, too, in a world where you can buy the stock of Honda or Toyota as easily as Ford or GM.
So the race is on to limit corporate exposure to runaway health insurance costs. And sure enough, President Bush has a plan.
In his address, the president said government has a responsibility to "help people afford the insurance coverage they need." The way to do that, his aides later explained, is to "level the playing field" so folks who buy their own insurance get as good a deal as folks who join their company's plan.
Sounds reasonable. But details of the proposal, released by the Treasury Department, are causing quite a stir among the fraternity of insurance wonks who understand the implications.
Bush proposes a supercharged version of the health savings accounts, or HSAs, that Congress first authorized in 2003. Think of HSAs as an individual retirement account for health-care expenses. The way it works now, workers who choose "high-deductible" plans--plans that require patients to pay the first $1,500 or more out-of-pocket--are eligible to make tax-deductible contributions--up to $5,450 a year in a family plan--to an HSA and later use that money to pay uncovered medical expenses.
Bush would let that family sock away $10,500 per year tax-free. Moreover, they could claim a tax credit equal to 15.3 percent of the amount they deposited. But it gets sweeter. If the worker buys his own high-deductible insurance policy, rather than one offered at work, the premiums he pays would be fully tax-deductible and eligible for the 15.3 percent tax credit.
It's all very complicated, but the bottom line is that relatively healthy people who can afford to set aside 10 grand a year would come out ahead by opening an HSA and buying their own insurance. After all, most employees cannot deduct the premiums they pay for their group plans, much less claim a refundable credit.
So what's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with encouraging workers, and their employers, to opt out of group insurance and go it alone ... with large amounts of help from Uncle Sam?
Plenty, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based think tank. You can read its analysis online (www.cbpp.org), but an abbreviated list of horribles goes like this:
- If, as expected, the healthiest and wealthiest leave the group insurance pool, premiums will shoot up for the not-so-healthy and not-so-wealthy. That's if they can find a plan that will take them. What insurance company is going to want your diabetic wife or disabled child?
- If, as expected, small-business owners, many of whom earn too much to qualify for a tax-deductible IRA, opt for the Bush HSA, which has no income limits, won't many owners simply do away with their company's group plan altogether? What's good for the boss must be good for the workers, right?
- If, as the free-market theorists predict, people with high deductibles "shop around" for bargain health care and forgo "unnecessary" care, how are folks to decide what and when care is necessary, much less where they'll get the most for their money? Surf the Internet? Thumb the Yellow Pages? So much for your primary-care physician and his or her trusted referral network of specialists.
No, what we have here is another Texas "two-fer," a combo better than $3 gasoline and lower taxes on capital gains. What we have here is the fig leaf behind which corporate America will walk away from group health insurance, along with the sweetest tax shelter ever invented for the fortunate few with six-figure incomes.
RIP, group health insurance.
Study says home, auto insurance cheaper in Wisconsin
National statistics show insuring your home and vehicle is cheaper in Wisconsin than nearly any other state.
Data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows the average combined home and auto insurance premium in Wisconsin is 29 percent lower than the national average.
The N-A-I-C statistics are from 2003. It ranks Wisconsin 49th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only Idaho is less expensive.
The average cost to insure both your home and auto in Wisconsin is one-thousand-54 dollars.
Wisconsin Insurance Alliance president Eric Englund says the state has a competitive insurance environment with several national firms based here.
That means consumers have a lot of choices, which holds down costs.
He says recent mild winters have reduced the number of car accidents and subsequent claims.
(Thanks Patty Murray, Wisconsin Public Radio)
Data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows the average combined home and auto insurance premium in Wisconsin is 29 percent lower than the national average.
The N-A-I-C statistics are from 2003. It ranks Wisconsin 49th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only Idaho is less expensive.
The average cost to insure both your home and auto in Wisconsin is one-thousand-54 dollars.
Wisconsin Insurance Alliance president Eric Englund says the state has a competitive insurance environment with several national firms based here.
That means consumers have a lot of choices, which holds down costs.
He says recent mild winters have reduced the number of car accidents and subsequent claims.
(Thanks Patty Murray, Wisconsin Public Radio)
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Age trends weigh on health plans
By Mike Causey
The average age of enrollees in Uncle Sam's in-house health insurance program is 59 -- to which most normal people would respond: "So what?"
Well, if you are one of the 9 million people in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), especially if you pay its premiums, it could end up being a very big deal.
For years, federal officials have watched the migration patterns among the FEHBP options for signs that one is getting top-heavy with costly seniors.
That is called "adverse selection." If too many so-called heavy users move into a health plan, or the number of people paying premiums in that plan is too small, it can be reflected in premium increases.
Over the years, several health plans have bitten the dust. These include one limited to congressional employees -- a favorite of Vice President Al Gore's -- and plans sponsored by unions or associations. Most either had costs that were too high and/or too few participants to stay in business.
Last month, the Office of Personnel Management pulled the plug on the Postmasters Benefit Plan for a number of reasons. Enrollees were moved into the Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard plan. They will have a chance next month to pick another plan if they like or stay with Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield has the largest number of federal worker enrollees, and almost all the federal retirees.
Although most feds and virtually all retirees stay in the same health care plan year after year, each November-to-December open season brings a migration of workers from traditional fee-for-service plans to less-costly health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
In many cases, the HMO enrollees are younger, healthier and more interested in dental and child care benefits than in a long-term relationship with their very own family physician.
Officials also are monitoring the migration habits of FEHBP employees to so-called high-deductible health plans (HDHP). They are new and, the Bush administration hopes, the wave of the future. The idea is that people pay lower premiums but have higher deductibles. Once that is reached, they have good catastrophic coverage.
Backers of HDHP say such plans will force people to be more selective in seeking medical treatment because they will find out firsthand what it costs until they satisfy their deductible.
Opponents turn the argument around -- we're good at that in Washington -- arguing that it will force people with less money to avoid going to the doctor when they are genuinely sick.
Both are probably correct.
A report by the Government Accountability Office finds that the average age of people in the high-deductible plans is 47 -- much lower than the FEHBP average -- and that they have much higher salary levels than feds in other plans.
An earlier study of the HDHP also revealed that its enrollees have higher levels of education. Some people would say that makes them smarter. And if they are better-paid, better-educated and younger, one could speculate that they are healthier, although maybe heavier, than their older colleagues.
But whether they are smarter or not, the changes could be important to premium payers down the road. Feds pay about 30 percent of their total health care premiums, and the government pays the rest.
The trend, if there is one, won't be official and definitive for years. The best bet for feds, who have the best coverage in the country, is to stay tuned -- and eat an apple every day.
The average age of enrollees in Uncle Sam's in-house health insurance program is 59 -- to which most normal people would respond: "So what?"
Well, if you are one of the 9 million people in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), especially if you pay its premiums, it could end up being a very big deal.
For years, federal officials have watched the migration patterns among the FEHBP options for signs that one is getting top-heavy with costly seniors.
That is called "adverse selection." If too many so-called heavy users move into a health plan, or the number of people paying premiums in that plan is too small, it can be reflected in premium increases.
Over the years, several health plans have bitten the dust. These include one limited to congressional employees -- a favorite of Vice President Al Gore's -- and plans sponsored by unions or associations. Most either had costs that were too high and/or too few participants to stay in business.
Last month, the Office of Personnel Management pulled the plug on the Postmasters Benefit Plan for a number of reasons. Enrollees were moved into the Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard plan. They will have a chance next month to pick another plan if they like or stay with Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield has the largest number of federal worker enrollees, and almost all the federal retirees.
Although most feds and virtually all retirees stay in the same health care plan year after year, each November-to-December open season brings a migration of workers from traditional fee-for-service plans to less-costly health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
In many cases, the HMO enrollees are younger, healthier and more interested in dental and child care benefits than in a long-term relationship with their very own family physician.
Officials also are monitoring the migration habits of FEHBP employees to so-called high-deductible health plans (HDHP). They are new and, the Bush administration hopes, the wave of the future. The idea is that people pay lower premiums but have higher deductibles. Once that is reached, they have good catastrophic coverage.
Backers of HDHP say such plans will force people to be more selective in seeking medical treatment because they will find out firsthand what it costs until they satisfy their deductible.
Opponents turn the argument around -- we're good at that in Washington -- arguing that it will force people with less money to avoid going to the doctor when they are genuinely sick.
Both are probably correct.
A report by the Government Accountability Office finds that the average age of people in the high-deductible plans is 47 -- much lower than the FEHBP average -- and that they have much higher salary levels than feds in other plans.
An earlier study of the HDHP also revealed that its enrollees have higher levels of education. Some people would say that makes them smarter. And if they are better-paid, better-educated and younger, one could speculate that they are healthier, although maybe heavier, than their older colleagues.
But whether they are smarter or not, the changes could be important to premium payers down the road. Feds pay about 30 percent of their total health care premiums, and the government pays the rest.
The trend, if there is one, won't be official and definitive for years. The best bet for feds, who have the best coverage in the country, is to stay tuned -- and eat an apple every day.
Health Insurance Bill Passes with Anti-Abortion Provision
AP
Despite an anti-abortion provision, the House easily approved a new health insurance bill Wednesday.
The bill would allow the state Board of Regents to offer health insurance for students and graduate students employed on campus, instead of having those policies offered through the individual universities. Backers of the idea expect insurers to offer lower-cost plans to a larger group of students.
But no plan offered by the regents could cover students' abortions.
The House's vote of 110 to 14 sent the measure to the Senate.
While House members generally have supported restrictions on abortion and abortion clinics, the margin is much closer than Wednesday's vote.
Despite an anti-abortion provision, the House easily approved a new health insurance bill Wednesday.
The bill would allow the state Board of Regents to offer health insurance for students and graduate students employed on campus, instead of having those policies offered through the individual universities. Backers of the idea expect insurers to offer lower-cost plans to a larger group of students.
But no plan offered by the regents could cover students' abortions.
The House's vote of 110 to 14 sent the measure to the Senate.
While House members generally have supported restrictions on abortion and abortion clinics, the margin is much closer than Wednesday's vote.
Drive for Car Insurance
From Inside Bay Area
Starting April 1, low-income drivers in Alameda County will be able to get auto insurance for under $350 a year as part of a move to expand an existing program to get more drivers insured in California.
The program is also expected to be expanded by mid-summer to San Mateo, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Imperial and Kern counties. While rates have not yet been set for those other locations, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi said Wednesday he expects they will be priced at under $400.
A state law opened the door for the low-cost auto insurance program to be started in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties in 2000. Rates in San Francisco — where it's estimated 19 percent of drivers are uninsured — are $314.
An estimated 23,000 uninsured motorists have signed up for the program in those two counties, with the vast majority signing up in Los Angeles.
The passage of SB 20 last year has allowed for the program to be expanded to 14 other counties where there are high numbers of uninsured motorists and high levels of poverty.
The idea is to provide low-income motorists with a limited liability policy for under $400 a year in hopes of increasing the number of insured motorists in California.
The state has more than 3 million uninsured motorists. The percentage of uninsured motorists is 12 percent in Alameda County, 7 percent in Contra Costa County, 12 percent in San Joaquin County and 16 percent in San Mateo County.
Under the program, motorists are provided with insurance that gives them limited liability coverage forfrom Business 1
personal injury to others and property damages resulting from an accident. The program allows motorists to add uninsured motorist coverage for an additional $30.
"There are 121,000 uninsured drivers in Alameda County. That's a huge population that's not buying auto insurance," Garamendi said. "We know the primary reason that people don't buy it is that they can't afford insurance.
"This will bring more uninsured drivers into the insurance market," Garamendi said. "Also, if we get enough people to get insurance, the cost of (uninsured motorist insurance) should go down."
To be eligible for low-cost auto insurance, a motorist must have a yearly income of no more than $23,275 for a individual, or $47,125 for a family of four, and a good driving record. The value of the insured vehicle cannot exceed $20,000. Motorists who meet the income criteria and already have insurance can sign up, said Garamendi, who publicized the program at a meeting Wednesday in Oakland.
"It's a crucial piece in solving the uninsured motorist problem," said Doug Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "That's a benefit not just to those who are squeezed out of the system but to everybody on the road."
Heller cited a report that found that 83 percent of motorists who signed up last year for low-cost auto insurance were previously uninsured. The Personal Insurance Federation of California supported SB 20 after it was amended to allow for Garamendi to establish premiums for low-cost auto insurance on a county-by-county basis.
Starting April 1, low-income drivers in Alameda County will be able to get auto insurance for under $350 a year as part of a move to expand an existing program to get more drivers insured in California.
The program is also expected to be expanded by mid-summer to San Mateo, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Imperial and Kern counties. While rates have not yet been set for those other locations, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi said Wednesday he expects they will be priced at under $400.
A state law opened the door for the low-cost auto insurance program to be started in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties in 2000. Rates in San Francisco — where it's estimated 19 percent of drivers are uninsured — are $314.
An estimated 23,000 uninsured motorists have signed up for the program in those two counties, with the vast majority signing up in Los Angeles.
The passage of SB 20 last year has allowed for the program to be expanded to 14 other counties where there are high numbers of uninsured motorists and high levels of poverty.
The idea is to provide low-income motorists with a limited liability policy for under $400 a year in hopes of increasing the number of insured motorists in California.
The state has more than 3 million uninsured motorists. The percentage of uninsured motorists is 12 percent in Alameda County, 7 percent in Contra Costa County, 12 percent in San Joaquin County and 16 percent in San Mateo County.
Under the program, motorists are provided with insurance that gives them limited liability coverage forfrom Business 1
personal injury to others and property damages resulting from an accident. The program allows motorists to add uninsured motorist coverage for an additional $30.
"There are 121,000 uninsured drivers in Alameda County. That's a huge population that's not buying auto insurance," Garamendi said. "We know the primary reason that people don't buy it is that they can't afford insurance.
"This will bring more uninsured drivers into the insurance market," Garamendi said. "Also, if we get enough people to get insurance, the cost of (uninsured motorist insurance) should go down."
To be eligible for low-cost auto insurance, a motorist must have a yearly income of no more than $23,275 for a individual, or $47,125 for a family of four, and a good driving record. The value of the insured vehicle cannot exceed $20,000. Motorists who meet the income criteria and already have insurance can sign up, said Garamendi, who publicized the program at a meeting Wednesday in Oakland.
"It's a crucial piece in solving the uninsured motorist problem," said Doug Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "That's a benefit not just to those who are squeezed out of the system but to everybody on the road."
Heller cited a report that found that 83 percent of motorists who signed up last year for low-cost auto insurance were previously uninsured. The Personal Insurance Federation of California supported SB 20 after it was amended to allow for Garamendi to establish premiums for low-cost auto insurance on a county-by-county basis.
American Insurance Association Says Auto Issues Priority in Minnesota
Insurance Journal
February 8, 2006
Repeal or reform of the state's auto insurance no-fault law, "no pay/no play" legislation and consumer privacy are all top legislative priorities for Minnesota, according to a written statement released by the American Insurance Association.
"It is time to address the problems with Minnesota's no-fault system for the benefit of consumers and the long-term health of the state's auto insurance market," said Steve Schneider, AIA vice president, Midwest Region. "Fixing the broken, and increasingly expensive, system will be our top priority this year in Minnesota."
Chief among the problems in Minnesota's no-fault system is the low medical cost threshold for lawsuits – just $4,000 – that has created an incentive for unscrupulous medical providers and trial lawyers to exploit the system and go to court. The goal of a no-fault system is to avoid a courtroom battle but Minnesotans, in essence, pay for both a no-fault and a traditional tort system. A joint Senate Commerce and House Commerce & Financial Institutions Committee will meet Feb. 28 to discuss the issue.
The AIA also suggests that additional market reforms such as enacting 'no pay/no play' legislation would be beneficial for consumers in the state.
"No pay/no play' is a term that refers to prohibiting uninsured motorists from filing lawsuits in motor vehicle crash cases for things such as pain and suffering damages. It is unfair for an uninsured motorist, who is driving illegally, to sue someone and reap a financial windfall by collecting non-economic damages," added Schneider.
The 2006 session may also see privacy-related proposals that could unduly restrict insurance companies' ability to perform normal business operations with customers and prospective customers. Restricting access to certain personal identifying information or credit-related information in the name of preventing identity theft is often more of a hurdle than a help for consumers and businesses, Schnieder said.
"There are already strict federal and state laws governing how a person's information can be used and who has access to it, and severe penalties for misuse. Insurers do a very good job protecting their customers' information and any further restrictions on an insurer's ability to conduct business could chill the marketplace," stated Schneider.
The Minnesota's Legislature reconvenes March 1 and is scheduled to adjourn May 22.
The American Insurance Association, Washington D.C., represents approximately 400 major insurance companies that provide all lines of property and casualty insurance and write more than $120 billion annually in premiums.
February 8, 2006
Repeal or reform of the state's auto insurance no-fault law, "no pay/no play" legislation and consumer privacy are all top legislative priorities for Minnesota, according to a written statement released by the American Insurance Association.
"It is time to address the problems with Minnesota's no-fault system for the benefit of consumers and the long-term health of the state's auto insurance market," said Steve Schneider, AIA vice president, Midwest Region. "Fixing the broken, and increasingly expensive, system will be our top priority this year in Minnesota."
Chief among the problems in Minnesota's no-fault system is the low medical cost threshold for lawsuits – just $4,000 – that has created an incentive for unscrupulous medical providers and trial lawyers to exploit the system and go to court. The goal of a no-fault system is to avoid a courtroom battle but Minnesotans, in essence, pay for both a no-fault and a traditional tort system. A joint Senate Commerce and House Commerce & Financial Institutions Committee will meet Feb. 28 to discuss the issue.
The AIA also suggests that additional market reforms such as enacting 'no pay/no play' legislation would be beneficial for consumers in the state.
"No pay/no play' is a term that refers to prohibiting uninsured motorists from filing lawsuits in motor vehicle crash cases for things such as pain and suffering damages. It is unfair for an uninsured motorist, who is driving illegally, to sue someone and reap a financial windfall by collecting non-economic damages," added Schneider.
The 2006 session may also see privacy-related proposals that could unduly restrict insurance companies' ability to perform normal business operations with customers and prospective customers. Restricting access to certain personal identifying information or credit-related information in the name of preventing identity theft is often more of a hurdle than a help for consumers and businesses, Schnieder said.
"There are already strict federal and state laws governing how a person's information can be used and who has access to it, and severe penalties for misuse. Insurers do a very good job protecting their customers' information and any further restrictions on an insurer's ability to conduct business could chill the marketplace," stated Schneider.
The Minnesota's Legislature reconvenes March 1 and is scheduled to adjourn May 22.
The American Insurance Association, Washington D.C., represents approximately 400 major insurance companies that provide all lines of property and casualty insurance and write more than $120 billion annually in premiums.
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
UniCare unveils health insurance for young Texans
From Austin Business Journal
UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co. introduced a health insurance plan for Texans ages 19 to 29.
About 1.2 million uninsured people between 19 and 29 live in Texas, according to UniCare. Nationwide, nearly half of all full-time workers in that age group lack employer-sponsored health care benefits.
UniCare says applicants for its Sound insurance program can choose from three plans: Gravity Bender, Curb Jumper and The Cruiser. Premiums start as low as $68 a month.
"Too often, young adults risk their financial futures by going without health insurance because they don't understand it or don't think they need it," says Mike Murphy, UniCare's regional vice president for individual and small-group sales.
In December, UniCare introduced six plans for individuals and families and three new plans for small businesses in Texas.
UniCare Life & Health Insurance is a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. (NYSE: WLP), the country's largest health insurer.
UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co. introduced a health insurance plan for Texans ages 19 to 29.
About 1.2 million uninsured people between 19 and 29 live in Texas, according to UniCare. Nationwide, nearly half of all full-time workers in that age group lack employer-sponsored health care benefits.
UniCare says applicants for its Sound insurance program can choose from three plans: Gravity Bender, Curb Jumper and The Cruiser. Premiums start as low as $68 a month.
"Too often, young adults risk their financial futures by going without health insurance because they don't understand it or don't think they need it," says Mike Murphy, UniCare's regional vice president for individual and small-group sales.
In December, UniCare introduced six plans for individuals and families and three new plans for small businesses in Texas.
UniCare Life & Health Insurance is a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. (NYSE: WLP), the country's largest health insurer.
Get More Mileage Out Of Your Auto Insurance
(ARA) - Over the past year, gas prices have done nothing but spiral upwards. Consumer frustration has risen accordingly, due to financial constraints as well as consumers' inability to purchase a new car or travel as much as they might have intended.
As life continues to skyrocket at the pump, wouldn't it be nice to bring down your annual auto insurance premium?
The good news from the Insurance Information Institute is that the cost of auto insurance was projected to increase by just 1.5 percent in 2005, the smallest increase in the past five years. This represents a continued slowdown from 2004, when auto insurance costs rose by only 2.8 percent, and can be attributed to less auto accidents, safer cars, and improved auto theft technology and fraud-fighting efforts.
That's good news for you too, according to Hussein Enan, chairman and CEO of InsWeb (www.insweb.com). "Typically, once rates reach a steady level, insurance carriers seek additional market share by lowering prices," says Enan. "Others soon follow to avoid losing customers. It's an excellent time for consumers to evaluate their current scenario and find the best, most cost-effective offering out there."
Whether you're insuring a sports car, sedan or SUV, here are seven simple ways to accelerate your savings:
1. Compare rates. In the spirit of the 1976 Captain and Tennille classic, you'd better shop around - at least twice a year. In a 2002 study of auto insurance rates provided to more than 107,000 consumers, Progressive Auto Insurance found that rates from different companies for comparable coverage could vary $500 or more every six months. That's huge. Which also explains why comparison shopping is the number one way to save money on auto insurance.
2. Raise your deductible. Go for the maximum collision and comprehensive deductibles you feel comfortable with - as they increase, your premium decreases. Raising your deductibles from $500 to $1,000 can save up to $400, depending on the company. And for older vehicles, consider eliminating collision damage altogether to save even more.
3. Believe in the "more is better" philosophy. If you put all your insurance needs in one basket (both auto and homeowners with the same company), and/or insure more than one vehicle on a single policy, you can (depending upon the company) save up to an additional 20 percent by taking advantage of attractive multiple car or multiple policy discounts.
4. Think carefully about your next car purchase. If you go for the fire engine red Corvette convertible, beware. It won't only be a beacon for highway patrol officers and car thieves, you'll pay for the privilege of owning a high-performance vehicle. Insurance companies use a premium rating system (from 3 to 27) for every car model, based on ratings received from the Insurance Services Office. The higher the number, the higher your premium. Call your insurance broker before you buy to find out the premium differences for the models you're considering.
5. Recognize your good student. Is your teenager of driving age in the top 20 percent of his/her class, and/or have a "B" or better grade point average? Good grades indicate a high level of responsibility and a commitment to succeed - and (if such discount is offered), can save you up to five percent on your policy.
6. Drive safely. Good driver discounts are awarded to those with no traffic violations or accidents within the past three to five years (the exact time varies by insurer). If you do get a speeding ticket, know that it will not only adversely affect your rates, but it will also usually take up to five years for your record to return to its previously clean condition. It pays to be an attentive, defensive driver.
7. Special discounts. Most companies also offer special discounts if you're a senior citizen, in the military (both active and retired), put low annual mileage on your car, operate your vehicle in a rural area, have memberships in organizations such as AAA or AARP, and/or work in a specific industry (e.g. engineers, scientists, mathematicians, teachers).
As life continues to skyrocket at the pump, wouldn't it be nice to bring down your annual auto insurance premium?
The good news from the Insurance Information Institute is that the cost of auto insurance was projected to increase by just 1.5 percent in 2005, the smallest increase in the past five years. This represents a continued slowdown from 2004, when auto insurance costs rose by only 2.8 percent, and can be attributed to less auto accidents, safer cars, and improved auto theft technology and fraud-fighting efforts.
That's good news for you too, according to Hussein Enan, chairman and CEO of InsWeb (www.insweb.com). "Typically, once rates reach a steady level, insurance carriers seek additional market share by lowering prices," says Enan. "Others soon follow to avoid losing customers. It's an excellent time for consumers to evaluate their current scenario and find the best, most cost-effective offering out there."
Whether you're insuring a sports car, sedan or SUV, here are seven simple ways to accelerate your savings:
1. Compare rates. In the spirit of the 1976 Captain and Tennille classic, you'd better shop around - at least twice a year. In a 2002 study of auto insurance rates provided to more than 107,000 consumers, Progressive Auto Insurance found that rates from different companies for comparable coverage could vary $500 or more every six months. That's huge. Which also explains why comparison shopping is the number one way to save money on auto insurance.
2. Raise your deductible. Go for the maximum collision and comprehensive deductibles you feel comfortable with - as they increase, your premium decreases. Raising your deductibles from $500 to $1,000 can save up to $400, depending on the company. And for older vehicles, consider eliminating collision damage altogether to save even more.
3. Believe in the "more is better" philosophy. If you put all your insurance needs in one basket (both auto and homeowners with the same company), and/or insure more than one vehicle on a single policy, you can (depending upon the company) save up to an additional 20 percent by taking advantage of attractive multiple car or multiple policy discounts.
4. Think carefully about your next car purchase. If you go for the fire engine red Corvette convertible, beware. It won't only be a beacon for highway patrol officers and car thieves, you'll pay for the privilege of owning a high-performance vehicle. Insurance companies use a premium rating system (from 3 to 27) for every car model, based on ratings received from the Insurance Services Office. The higher the number, the higher your premium. Call your insurance broker before you buy to find out the premium differences for the models you're considering.
5. Recognize your good student. Is your teenager of driving age in the top 20 percent of his/her class, and/or have a "B" or better grade point average? Good grades indicate a high level of responsibility and a commitment to succeed - and (if such discount is offered), can save you up to five percent on your policy.
6. Drive safely. Good driver discounts are awarded to those with no traffic violations or accidents within the past three to five years (the exact time varies by insurer). If you do get a speeding ticket, know that it will not only adversely affect your rates, but it will also usually take up to five years for your record to return to its previously clean condition. It pays to be an attentive, defensive driver.
7. Special discounts. Most companies also offer special discounts if you're a senior citizen, in the military (both active and retired), put low annual mileage on your car, operate your vehicle in a rural area, have memberships in organizations such as AAA or AARP, and/or work in a specific industry (e.g. engineers, scientists, mathematicians, teachers).
Study outlines hurdles to health insurance for Indians
SANTA FE, N.M.
Cost, complexity and cultural barriers are among the hurdles to health insurance for American Indians.
That's according to a study done for New Mexico's Human Services Department.
The department commissioned the study to determine why Indians are disproportionately underinsured. Twenty-eight percent of Indians don't have health care coverage, compared with eleven percent of non-Hispanic whites.
The major obstacle is low wages among Indians, and the cost of monthly premiums or deductibles or copays. The study also says bureaucracy surrounding health care and confusion about how it works are deterrents.
Cost, complexity and cultural barriers are among the hurdles to health insurance for American Indians.
That's according to a study done for New Mexico's Human Services Department.
The department commissioned the study to determine why Indians are disproportionately underinsured. Twenty-eight percent of Indians don't have health care coverage, compared with eleven percent of non-Hispanic whites.
The major obstacle is low wages among Indians, and the cost of monthly premiums or deductibles or copays. The study also says bureaucracy surrounding health care and confusion about how it works are deterrents.
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
Online Health Insurance: The Truth About Cheap Quotes
Looking for low cost health insurance quotes? Good. You are taking that most important step of shopping around for the best price. But more importantly, you undstand that it is important to have health insurance, and perhaps, even more importantly, understand that the real purpose of health insurance, as for any insurance, is protection. That is, you do not get health insurance to act as a sort of discount off the price of doctor and hospital services. The point of insurance is protection in the event of catastrophe. Yes, health insurance costs are high and continue to rise, but do not forget that the reason you are seeking health insurance quotes online--and even offline--is to insure you get the most protection (not discount) for the best (lowest) rate.
Getting health insurance quotes is now extremely easy with the use of the Internet. Take advantage of online insurance quote availability to get an idea of the range of premium prices offered. Even if you don't want to buy online, you will have a better understanding of what the insurance agent is talking about, and when it comes time to put ink on the contract, you will be making a more informed decision. Remember, too, that quotes are free and come without obligation.
When you look for cheap health insurance quotes, online or off, you must also consider type of health care you want and what that means in terms of how your care is delivered to you. Health insurance is a much more than a matter of co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles. When you get a health insurance quote, you are getting a quote on a certain kind of plan. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a single "best" plan. You will find that there are some plans that will serve your needs better as an individual, and plans that will be better for both you and your family's needs. Plans will vary according to what services they offer, and you will probably have to make some hard choices as to what services are most important. No plan will pay everything; there will always be out-of-pocket costs associated with your medical services, though some plans will pay more for the services you deem most important. So, health insurance quotes are really the tip of the iceberg to a very important subject.
Cheap Health Insurance Quotes and the HMO, PPO, FFS/indemnity plan, and POS.
HMO--An HMO is a health maintenance organization. An HMO contracts with doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers to form a sort of network. As a member of an HMO, you are required to use the providers in that network. You pay the HMO a certain amount of money per their payment arrangements in order to receive medical services.
PPO--A PPO is a preferred provider organization. A PPO is similar to an HMO in that there is a network of medical providers that you can use. However, the PPO does not require you to use that network and allows you see doctors and go to hospitals out of network. Normally, you do not need a referral to see doctors out of network. However, in that event, you do pay more for the service. That is, the amount of coverage is less.
POS--A POS is a point of service plan. A point of service plan is very much like an HMO except that POS doctors can refer you out of the network of providers to see a specialist. In a POS, you would not refer yourself, and if the plan does refer you out of the network, you do pay more for the service.
FFS--A FFS or indemnity plan, is a fee for service plan. In a fee for service, you are billed by the service. You are usually not required to use a network of providers. That means you choose which doctors, hospitals, and specialists you want to see and use. Because you make the decision about who you see and where you go, there is no need for a referral to see a doctor. The only limiting factor is whether or not the provider accepts the insurance of the fee for service plan insurance.
Low Cost health insurance quotes have a lot going on behind the scenes. Seeking an online quote? Now you have a better idea of what that quote is for. When you visit an insurance agent to talk health care, be sure to look thoroughly into the options available to you. Your health insurance quote represents a package of insurance services, and it is important for you to understand the relationship between the quote and the services you may be purchasing.
Getting health insurance quotes is now extremely easy with the use of the Internet. Take advantage of online insurance quote availability to get an idea of the range of premium prices offered. Even if you don't want to buy online, you will have a better understanding of what the insurance agent is talking about, and when it comes time to put ink on the contract, you will be making a more informed decision. Remember, too, that quotes are free and come without obligation.
When you look for cheap health insurance quotes, online or off, you must also consider type of health care you want and what that means in terms of how your care is delivered to you. Health insurance is a much more than a matter of co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles. When you get a health insurance quote, you are getting a quote on a certain kind of plan. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a single "best" plan. You will find that there are some plans that will serve your needs better as an individual, and plans that will be better for both you and your family's needs. Plans will vary according to what services they offer, and you will probably have to make some hard choices as to what services are most important. No plan will pay everything; there will always be out-of-pocket costs associated with your medical services, though some plans will pay more for the services you deem most important. So, health insurance quotes are really the tip of the iceberg to a very important subject.
Cheap Health Insurance Quotes and the HMO, PPO, FFS/indemnity plan, and POS.
HMO--An HMO is a health maintenance organization. An HMO contracts with doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers to form a sort of network. As a member of an HMO, you are required to use the providers in that network. You pay the HMO a certain amount of money per their payment arrangements in order to receive medical services.
PPO--A PPO is a preferred provider organization. A PPO is similar to an HMO in that there is a network of medical providers that you can use. However, the PPO does not require you to use that network and allows you see doctors and go to hospitals out of network. Normally, you do not need a referral to see doctors out of network. However, in that event, you do pay more for the service. That is, the amount of coverage is less.
POS--A POS is a point of service plan. A point of service plan is very much like an HMO except that POS doctors can refer you out of the network of providers to see a specialist. In a POS, you would not refer yourself, and if the plan does refer you out of the network, you do pay more for the service.
FFS--A FFS or indemnity plan, is a fee for service plan. In a fee for service, you are billed by the service. You are usually not required to use a network of providers. That means you choose which doctors, hospitals, and specialists you want to see and use. Because you make the decision about who you see and where you go, there is no need for a referral to see a doctor. The only limiting factor is whether or not the provider accepts the insurance of the fee for service plan insurance.
Low Cost health insurance quotes have a lot going on behind the scenes. Seeking an online quote? Now you have a better idea of what that quote is for. When you visit an insurance agent to talk health care, be sure to look thoroughly into the options available to you. Your health insurance quote represents a package of insurance services, and it is important for you to understand the relationship between the quote and the services you may be purchasing.
Monday, February 6, 2006
North American Health Plans completes purchase
North American Health Plans said Thursday it has completed its purchase of the health care division of The Howard E. Nyhart Co. in Indianapolis, bolstering the third-party administrator's Midwest presence.
The Amherst-based provider of third-party health plan management services will combine the Nyhart business with its existing operation in Indiana, creating one of the largest independent third-party administrators in the state. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Founded in 1943, Nyhart provides consulting and administration services for all forms of employee benefit programs. The firm's Indianapolis office will be folded into North American's own offices in that city, while Nyhart's Evansville office will become a new location.
The deal expands North American's presence in a state that CEO Elliot S. Cooperstone called a "very important market for our company."
In a press release announcing the transaction's closing, Cooperstone noted that North American has been building its business in Indiana for the last two years, since its purchase in 2004 of Benefit Systems of Indianapolis, with 40 employees and 60 clients.
Nyhart adds another 70 employees, and $8 million in annual revenues.
This is the latest in a series of more than 10 purchases by North American, which has grown into one of the nation's largest independent third-party administrators since its founding in 1983.
The Amherst-based provider of third-party health plan management services will combine the Nyhart business with its existing operation in Indiana, creating one of the largest independent third-party administrators in the state. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Founded in 1943, Nyhart provides consulting and administration services for all forms of employee benefit programs. The firm's Indianapolis office will be folded into North American's own offices in that city, while Nyhart's Evansville office will become a new location.
The deal expands North American's presence in a state that CEO Elliot S. Cooperstone called a "very important market for our company."
In a press release announcing the transaction's closing, Cooperstone noted that North American has been building its business in Indiana for the last two years, since its purchase in 2004 of Benefit Systems of Indianapolis, with 40 employees and 60 clients.
Nyhart adds another 70 employees, and $8 million in annual revenues.
This is the latest in a series of more than 10 purchases by North American, which has grown into one of the nation's largest independent third-party administrators since its founding in 1983.
Cut car insurance costs by assessing risks
BY MARSHALL LOEB
MarketWatch
NEW YORK -- If you want to save money on your auto insurance - and who doesn't -- ask your agent whether you really need that part of your policy known as collision and comprehensive coverage.
If you choose to buy collision coverage, your insurer will pay for repairs to your car after a smashup if it was your fault or you can't collect from the driver who caused the accident.
Comprehensive coverage, which is also optional, protects you against other losses -- for example, if your car is stolen or vandalized, is hit by falling objects, catches fire or is damaged in a flood.
Comprehensive additionally covers loss of items installed in your car, such as a radio, but usually not anything you are transporting in it; such losses are covered by your homeowner or tenant policy, as long as your car was locked when the theft occurred.
There are often significant differences in premiums for various makes and models. Cars that are easily damaged in accidents, are popular for joy riders or are a valuable source of spare parts are more expensive to insure. Collision and comprehensive insurance is cheaper on cars that are harder to damage and easier to repair.
If you decide to buy collision and comprehensive coverage, remember: Your insurer will not reimburse you for more than your car's current retail value. Consequently, you might be wise to buy both coverages only when your car is less than 3 years old.
To keep premiums reasonable, take the largest deductible -- the amount you must pay before the insurer starts reimbursing you -- that you can afford. Car owners typically accept deductibles of $250; but $500 might be better because it will knock about 10 percent off your premium.
If your car is more than 5 to 7 years old, or is worth less than $1,500, you might consider dropping your collision and comprehensive insurance altogether.
As you shop around for the best policy, keep this rule in mind: Never risk more than you can afford to lose, but don't pay to insure what you can afford to risk.
MarketWatch
NEW YORK -- If you want to save money on your auto insurance - and who doesn't -- ask your agent whether you really need that part of your policy known as collision and comprehensive coverage.
If you choose to buy collision coverage, your insurer will pay for repairs to your car after a smashup if it was your fault or you can't collect from the driver who caused the accident.
Comprehensive coverage, which is also optional, protects you against other losses -- for example, if your car is stolen or vandalized, is hit by falling objects, catches fire or is damaged in a flood.
Comprehensive additionally covers loss of items installed in your car, such as a radio, but usually not anything you are transporting in it; such losses are covered by your homeowner or tenant policy, as long as your car was locked when the theft occurred.
There are often significant differences in premiums for various makes and models. Cars that are easily damaged in accidents, are popular for joy riders or are a valuable source of spare parts are more expensive to insure. Collision and comprehensive insurance is cheaper on cars that are harder to damage and easier to repair.
If you decide to buy collision and comprehensive coverage, remember: Your insurer will not reimburse you for more than your car's current retail value. Consequently, you might be wise to buy both coverages only when your car is less than 3 years old.
To keep premiums reasonable, take the largest deductible -- the amount you must pay before the insurer starts reimbursing you -- that you can afford. Car owners typically accept deductibles of $250; but $500 might be better because it will knock about 10 percent off your premium.
If your car is more than 5 to 7 years old, or is worth less than $1,500, you might consider dropping your collision and comprehensive insurance altogether.
As you shop around for the best policy, keep this rule in mind: Never risk more than you can afford to lose, but don't pay to insure what you can afford to risk.
Health savings accounts work
From Phialdelphia Enquirer
In December 2003, President Bush signed a health-care law that had two major components. The first was the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that took effect last month. That big-government program has been widely panned as a disaster. The second was a new health insurance option called health savings accounts, or HSAs, which became available in January 2004.
Unlike the Medicare drug program, the response to HSAs has been overwhelmingly positive. In just two years, three million Americans have signed up for an HSA. More than one-third of HSA enrollees were previously uninsured, which means HSAs already may have reduced the number of uninsured by 1 million. Deloitte Consulting L.L.P. reports that, for two years running, insurance premiums for HSAs and similar plans rose at about one-third the rate of increase for other types of coverage.
So in his State of the Union address, Bush proposed expanding and enhancing HSAs. His new Medicare entitlement? He didn't even mention it. Go figure.
Fortunately, his HSA proposals would make health coverage and care better and more affordable for hundreds of millions of Americans.
HSAs couple high-deductible health insurance with a tax-free savings account (the HSA) for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Individuals and/or employers can contribute money to HSAs tax-free up to the amount of the insurance deductible. HSAs must be coupled with insurance that has a deductible of at least $1,050 for individuals and $2,100 for families.
HSA funds may be withdrawn tax-free for any medical expenses. Once expenses reach the deductible, insurance takes over. Any funds that remain in the HSA roll over from year to year and grow tax-free.
Right off the bat, HSAs save money because high-deductible insurance is cheaper than low-deductible coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the difference in premiums between the average HSA-compatible policy and the average for all types of insurance is $1,324. That is more than enough savings to cover the average annual HSA deductible ($1,901) in just two years. Sometimes, the savings covers the entire deductible in the first year.
HSAs also let consumers control more of their health-care dollars and decisions. Since consumers own the money that covers their out-of-pocket expenses, they can see any doctors they like, whenever they like. At the same time, patients scrutinize their medical bills and their doctors' recommendations more carefully because it is their money on the line.
The chronically ill, however, likely would use up all their HSA deposits in a given year and have little opportunity to save for future medical needs. Even with HSAs, consumers without access to employer-sponsored insurance still pay a hefty tax penalty when they purchase health insurance on their own.
To address those problems, the President proposes essentially doubling the limits on HSA contributions and allowing people to purchase health insurance with tax-free HSA funds. The higher contribution limits ($5,250 for individuals and $10,500 for families) would help the chronically ill and their families by allowing them to put more money aside tax-free for their medical needs. Allowing HSA funds to purchase health insurance would provide tax equity to millions who are unfairly punished by the tax code.
Critics claim that HSAs are only good for the healthy or wealthy. If true, that would mean HSAs benefit only about 80 percent of the population. Not bad, that. But in fact, eHealthInsurance.com reports that half of HSA enrollees are over 40 years old, 20 percent earn less than $35,000, and 40 percent earn less than $50,000.
Unfortunately, the President's proposals are unnecessarily complex and would continue to restrict HSAs to those who purchase high-deductible insurance. There is no reason why HSA holders should not be able to choose their health plan themselves.
Nonetheless, Bush has made a solid proposal that would improve the quality and affordability of private-sector health insurance and medical care. As for Medicare, well...
In December 2003, President Bush signed a health-care law that had two major components. The first was the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that took effect last month. That big-government program has been widely panned as a disaster. The second was a new health insurance option called health savings accounts, or HSAs, which became available in January 2004.
Unlike the Medicare drug program, the response to HSAs has been overwhelmingly positive. In just two years, three million Americans have signed up for an HSA. More than one-third of HSA enrollees were previously uninsured, which means HSAs already may have reduced the number of uninsured by 1 million. Deloitte Consulting L.L.P. reports that, for two years running, insurance premiums for HSAs and similar plans rose at about one-third the rate of increase for other types of coverage.
So in his State of the Union address, Bush proposed expanding and enhancing HSAs. His new Medicare entitlement? He didn't even mention it. Go figure.
Fortunately, his HSA proposals would make health coverage and care better and more affordable for hundreds of millions of Americans.
HSAs couple high-deductible health insurance with a tax-free savings account (the HSA) for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Individuals and/or employers can contribute money to HSAs tax-free up to the amount of the insurance deductible. HSAs must be coupled with insurance that has a deductible of at least $1,050 for individuals and $2,100 for families.
HSA funds may be withdrawn tax-free for any medical expenses. Once expenses reach the deductible, insurance takes over. Any funds that remain in the HSA roll over from year to year and grow tax-free.
Right off the bat, HSAs save money because high-deductible insurance is cheaper than low-deductible coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the difference in premiums between the average HSA-compatible policy and the average for all types of insurance is $1,324. That is more than enough savings to cover the average annual HSA deductible ($1,901) in just two years. Sometimes, the savings covers the entire deductible in the first year.
HSAs also let consumers control more of their health-care dollars and decisions. Since consumers own the money that covers their out-of-pocket expenses, they can see any doctors they like, whenever they like. At the same time, patients scrutinize their medical bills and their doctors' recommendations more carefully because it is their money on the line.
The chronically ill, however, likely would use up all their HSA deposits in a given year and have little opportunity to save for future medical needs. Even with HSAs, consumers without access to employer-sponsored insurance still pay a hefty tax penalty when they purchase health insurance on their own.
To address those problems, the President proposes essentially doubling the limits on HSA contributions and allowing people to purchase health insurance with tax-free HSA funds. The higher contribution limits ($5,250 for individuals and $10,500 for families) would help the chronically ill and their families by allowing them to put more money aside tax-free for their medical needs. Allowing HSA funds to purchase health insurance would provide tax equity to millions who are unfairly punished by the tax code.
Critics claim that HSAs are only good for the healthy or wealthy. If true, that would mean HSAs benefit only about 80 percent of the population. Not bad, that. But in fact, eHealthInsurance.com reports that half of HSA enrollees are over 40 years old, 20 percent earn less than $35,000, and 40 percent earn less than $50,000.
Unfortunately, the President's proposals are unnecessarily complex and would continue to restrict HSAs to those who purchase high-deductible insurance. There is no reason why HSA holders should not be able to choose their health plan themselves.
Nonetheless, Bush has made a solid proposal that would improve the quality and affordability of private-sector health insurance and medical care. As for Medicare, well...
Friday, February 3, 2006
Compromise health insurance measure heads to Bush
From Chicago Sun Times
WASHINGTON-- Illinois' state health insurance pool should get $5.4 million under a compromise measure Sen. Dick Durbin helped push through after negotiating a more than $1 million increase over what the original bill proposed.
"This is a victory for uninsured Illinoisans who rely on this state-federal program for their health insurance," Durbin, D-Ill., said hours after the Senate late Wednesday approved the legislation by unanimous consent.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., now goes to President Bush for his expected signature.
It previously was approved by the House on unanimous consent.
Last September, Durbin engineered a compromise that offered a better deal for Illinoisans. The move toward a better deal for the state came after Durbin, the Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat, had blocked the original bill for seven months.
"I could not stand idly by when the earlier bill would have resulted in hundreds of Illinoisans losing their health insurance," Durbin said Thursday.
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance Care had questioned Durbin's hard-nosed negotiating tactics in a letter, signed by administrators of 20 state health plans, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
"One senator should not stop needed help to states providing an important health insurance safety net to the sickest Americans," the letter said.
At stake was $300 million-plus in funding nationwide for the approximately 30 high-risk health insurance pools that provide coverage for those with medical conditions that make it impossible to get coverage in the regular market.
Durbin estimated Illinois would have received $3.8 million under the original bill, which would have been a 60 percent cut. South Dakota, a sparsely populated state, would have seen its funding double.
Based on figures released by the Illinois Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, Illinois would have received $4.4 million a year under the original Senate bill, instead of its previous average of $7.4 million during two previous years, which largely was used to cut premiums for the state's participants.
Illinois has about 17,000 participants in high-risk insurance pools. In 2003, the state had $117 million in uninsured losses, with almost 70 percent of the tab borne by patients. The cost was kept down through subsidies such as assessments on insurance companies, state revenues and federal grants.
WASHINGTON-- Illinois' state health insurance pool should get $5.4 million under a compromise measure Sen. Dick Durbin helped push through after negotiating a more than $1 million increase over what the original bill proposed.
"This is a victory for uninsured Illinoisans who rely on this state-federal program for their health insurance," Durbin, D-Ill., said hours after the Senate late Wednesday approved the legislation by unanimous consent.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., now goes to President Bush for his expected signature.
It previously was approved by the House on unanimous consent.
Last September, Durbin engineered a compromise that offered a better deal for Illinoisans. The move toward a better deal for the state came after Durbin, the Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat, had blocked the original bill for seven months.
"I could not stand idly by when the earlier bill would have resulted in hundreds of Illinoisans losing their health insurance," Durbin said Thursday.
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance Care had questioned Durbin's hard-nosed negotiating tactics in a letter, signed by administrators of 20 state health plans, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
"One senator should not stop needed help to states providing an important health insurance safety net to the sickest Americans," the letter said.
At stake was $300 million-plus in funding nationwide for the approximately 30 high-risk health insurance pools that provide coverage for those with medical conditions that make it impossible to get coverage in the regular market.
Durbin estimated Illinois would have received $3.8 million under the original bill, which would have been a 60 percent cut. South Dakota, a sparsely populated state, would have seen its funding double.
Based on figures released by the Illinois Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, Illinois would have received $4.4 million a year under the original Senate bill, instead of its previous average of $7.4 million during two previous years, which largely was used to cut premiums for the state's participants.
Illinois has about 17,000 participants in high-risk insurance pools. In 2003, the state had $117 million in uninsured losses, with almost 70 percent of the tab borne by patients. The cost was kept down through subsidies such as assessments on insurance companies, state revenues and federal grants.
How to Get Your Health-Care Coverage
From Business Week
Not getting health insurance through your employer? Here are some tips on alternative methods to help you lower the expense
In his Jan. 31 State of the Union address, one of the items on President Bush's lengthy wish list was improved access to health care for all Americans. But like the other lofty goals set out in the speech, that would be no small trick (see BW Online, 2/1/06, "Bush's Health-Care Scheme Needs a Dr.") The world's largest health-care system is unwieldy, and notoriously slow to incorporate technologies and innovations that could make it better, especially the antiquated back-office practices of many health-care providers that add so much to the cost of care.
And rapidly rising health-care costs present a vexing problem, making it ever more difficult for many Americans to get insurance. According to the Census Bureau, in 2004 45.8 million Americans (15.7% of the population) lacked health insurance.
STAY INSURED. It's not just the less well off. Too many people lack coverage for them to all fall within any one demographic or earnings range. Even affluent Americans can find themselves without a net, perhaps when they leave a large organization to start a new business or seek early retirement before they qualify for Medicare.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) program provides an insurance option for 18 months or more after leaving a job, but premiums can be expensive and stints between jobs with benefits can last longer. Letting insurance expire isn't an attractive option either. Among other problems, it can make subsequent attempts to enroll more difficult. Carolyn McCalahan, a Jacksonville (Fla.)-based doctor and financial adviser, says, "The day people let their insurance lapse is when they break an ankle."
Especially for the young and healthy, the prospect of ducking premiums (perhaps vowing to spend a portion of the savings on healthy living) and going without any sort of coverage might be a tempting option. By all accounts it's not a good idea. So, in the interest of keeping our readers healthy, Five for the Money offers strategies for getting health insurance -- or at least lowering health-care costs -- to those working without a net.
1. Buy insurance through Sam's Club. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) has taken heat for not providing enough of its hourly employees with health coverage, but a program offered through its Sam's Club warehouse stores could potentially change how Americans buy insurance. Sam's Club members -- the people who pay to shop at the cavernous discount stores -- can now also buy their health insurance through the retailer.
Offered with Salt Lake City benefit management outfit Extend Benefits Group, the program is designed to allow Sam's Club members to choose between plans based on their family's needs and budget. For example, a 30-year-old man in Los Angeles could choose from more than 40 plans with monthly premiums ranging from $50 to about $400.
Employers can also sign up to get their employees into the program. A Sam's Club spokesman declined to say how many people have signed up for health insurance since the program kicked off in early January, but the store says it has 46 million members.
2. Use a Health Savings Account. For those who can afford it, combining a Health Savings Account (HSA) into medical costs can be an attractive option. Signed into law by President Bush in 2003, the accounts enable people to set aside funds, tax free, to be used for future health care.
The money can also be used to fund retirement. The accounts must be paired with an eligible "high-deductible health plan," according to the Treasury Dept.
Because they are often coupled with relatively inexpensive insurance policies, HSA users can save money, "especially if they're healthy," says financial adviser Donald Whalen of Alpharetta, Ga. The program provides protection from the costs associated with disastrous medical problems, but not, typically, a family's routine medical expenses. "Insurance is supposed to protect you against catastrophes, it's not supposed to subsidize your doctor's visits," Whalen adds.
3. Work part-time. In addition to placing enormous burdens on individuals, the price of health insurance has forced many employers to reel in their offerings. Nonetheless, part-time employees at a few companies qualify for attractive benefits. For example, Starbucks (SBUX ) employees who clock at least 20 hours a week are eligible for health insurance.
Start slinging lattes and you'll also be eligible for a 401(k) and stock options. These days, that looks like a bona fide retirement plan, particularly by the flinty standards of the service sector. For many freelancers, the part-time jobs can also be an attractive option because they often offer a degree of flexibility along with the benefits.
4. Find an independent insurance broker. If you're too busy for a part-time job, there are still other avenues available. Whalen says the uninsured often flock to Web sites such as eHealthInsurance.com and INSweb.com, which allow consumers to compare the offerings of different private health insurers. He says it may be smarter to meet with an independent broker first.
"Being turned down for health insurance is kind of like being declined for credit," Whalen says, in that it can affect how future potential insurers will evaluate you. "It's much better to have someone work with you from the start," to ensure a good fit. He suggests starting the search with the National Association of Health Underwriters, which represents brokers and offers listings on its Web site.
5. Broaden your search. Large employers aren't the only ones offering group plans. A surprising number of professional and independent organizations offer health insurance. In a search for insurance options it's a good idea to check with bar associations, chambers of commerce, and similar groups. A Brooklyn (N.Y.)-based group called Working Today offers a health insurance program to qualifying freelancers.
In addition to these outfits, states offer health insurance of widely divergent price and quality. Financial advisers say that in some cases it's a last resort for those rejected by private insurers, but other states have made an effort to provide more attractive packages. Maine, for example, has instituted Dirigo Health, a program designed to provide coverage to everyone in the state, using mechanisms like subsidized premiums to include those in lower income brackets.
Tom Rogers, a financial adviser based in Portland, Me., says the Dirigo program has been only "partially successful" as it smoothes out growing pains, but has nonetheless provided a model that other states may follow. As the ranks of the uninsured grow, the expansion of public and private plan options may be the best medicine.
Not getting health insurance through your employer? Here are some tips on alternative methods to help you lower the expense
In his Jan. 31 State of the Union address, one of the items on President Bush's lengthy wish list was improved access to health care for all Americans. But like the other lofty goals set out in the speech, that would be no small trick (see BW Online, 2/1/06, "Bush's Health-Care Scheme Needs a Dr.") The world's largest health-care system is unwieldy, and notoriously slow to incorporate technologies and innovations that could make it better, especially the antiquated back-office practices of many health-care providers that add so much to the cost of care.
And rapidly rising health-care costs present a vexing problem, making it ever more difficult for many Americans to get insurance. According to the Census Bureau, in 2004 45.8 million Americans (15.7% of the population) lacked health insurance.
STAY INSURED. It's not just the less well off. Too many people lack coverage for them to all fall within any one demographic or earnings range. Even affluent Americans can find themselves without a net, perhaps when they leave a large organization to start a new business or seek early retirement before they qualify for Medicare.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) program provides an insurance option for 18 months or more after leaving a job, but premiums can be expensive and stints between jobs with benefits can last longer. Letting insurance expire isn't an attractive option either. Among other problems, it can make subsequent attempts to enroll more difficult. Carolyn McCalahan, a Jacksonville (Fla.)-based doctor and financial adviser, says, "The day people let their insurance lapse is when they break an ankle."
Especially for the young and healthy, the prospect of ducking premiums (perhaps vowing to spend a portion of the savings on healthy living) and going without any sort of coverage might be a tempting option. By all accounts it's not a good idea. So, in the interest of keeping our readers healthy, Five for the Money offers strategies for getting health insurance -- or at least lowering health-care costs -- to those working without a net.
1. Buy insurance through Sam's Club. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) has taken heat for not providing enough of its hourly employees with health coverage, but a program offered through its Sam's Club warehouse stores could potentially change how Americans buy insurance. Sam's Club members -- the people who pay to shop at the cavernous discount stores -- can now also buy their health insurance through the retailer.
Offered with Salt Lake City benefit management outfit Extend Benefits Group, the program is designed to allow Sam's Club members to choose between plans based on their family's needs and budget. For example, a 30-year-old man in Los Angeles could choose from more than 40 plans with monthly premiums ranging from $50 to about $400.
Employers can also sign up to get their employees into the program. A Sam's Club spokesman declined to say how many people have signed up for health insurance since the program kicked off in early January, but the store says it has 46 million members.
2. Use a Health Savings Account. For those who can afford it, combining a Health Savings Account (HSA) into medical costs can be an attractive option. Signed into law by President Bush in 2003, the accounts enable people to set aside funds, tax free, to be used for future health care.
The money can also be used to fund retirement. The accounts must be paired with an eligible "high-deductible health plan," according to the Treasury Dept.
Because they are often coupled with relatively inexpensive insurance policies, HSA users can save money, "especially if they're healthy," says financial adviser Donald Whalen of Alpharetta, Ga. The program provides protection from the costs associated with disastrous medical problems, but not, typically, a family's routine medical expenses. "Insurance is supposed to protect you against catastrophes, it's not supposed to subsidize your doctor's visits," Whalen adds.
3. Work part-time. In addition to placing enormous burdens on individuals, the price of health insurance has forced many employers to reel in their offerings. Nonetheless, part-time employees at a few companies qualify for attractive benefits. For example, Starbucks (SBUX ) employees who clock at least 20 hours a week are eligible for health insurance.
Start slinging lattes and you'll also be eligible for a 401(k) and stock options. These days, that looks like a bona fide retirement plan, particularly by the flinty standards of the service sector. For many freelancers, the part-time jobs can also be an attractive option because they often offer a degree of flexibility along with the benefits.
4. Find an independent insurance broker. If you're too busy for a part-time job, there are still other avenues available. Whalen says the uninsured often flock to Web sites such as eHealthInsurance.com and INSweb.com, which allow consumers to compare the offerings of different private health insurers. He says it may be smarter to meet with an independent broker first.
"Being turned down for health insurance is kind of like being declined for credit," Whalen says, in that it can affect how future potential insurers will evaluate you. "It's much better to have someone work with you from the start," to ensure a good fit. He suggests starting the search with the National Association of Health Underwriters, which represents brokers and offers listings on its Web site.
5. Broaden your search. Large employers aren't the only ones offering group plans. A surprising number of professional and independent organizations offer health insurance. In a search for insurance options it's a good idea to check with bar associations, chambers of commerce, and similar groups. A Brooklyn (N.Y.)-based group called Working Today offers a health insurance program to qualifying freelancers.
In addition to these outfits, states offer health insurance of widely divergent price and quality. Financial advisers say that in some cases it's a last resort for those rejected by private insurers, but other states have made an effort to provide more attractive packages. Maine, for example, has instituted Dirigo Health, a program designed to provide coverage to everyone in the state, using mechanisms like subsidized premiums to include those in lower income brackets.
Tom Rogers, a financial adviser based in Portland, Me., says the Dirigo program has been only "partially successful" as it smoothes out growing pains, but has nonetheless provided a model that other states may follow. As the ranks of the uninsured grow, the expansion of public and private plan options may be the best medicine.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
:.
