Press Release
Online insurance shopping network provides consumers with saving tips
Denver November 4, 2005 (PRWEB) November 4, 2005 -- InsureMe, the country’s premiere insurance referral service, is offering tips for consumers to take the sting out of paying for insurance.
With the added economic obstacles such as gas and heating costs, it’s important that consumers save money wherever they can—starting with their insurance.
The InsureMe company gives consumers a better way to shop for insurance online, allowing them to compare up to five quotes from insurance professionals on auto, health, life, home and long-term care insurance. The InsureMe Web site also provides consumers with extensive, state-specific information on insurance, aimed to help consumers make informed decisions about their coverage.
“Obtaining multiple quotes allows the consumer to compare both policy and price,” says former insurance agent and InsureMe president, Tim McTavish. “And with the current competition in the insurance marketplace, consumers can take advantage of agents competing for their business.”
In addition to comparing multiple quotes, McTavish recommends that insurance shoppers take advantage of various discounts. Multiple policy discounts are often given to consumers who buy more than one policy from an insurer, such as policies for auto and homeowner’s coverage. Discounts are also available for low-risk behavior and safe practices; reductions are often given to safe drivers, homeowner’s with anti-theft devices, as well as to non-smokers and those free from obesity and associated health problems.
“It’s important for consumers to know that these discounts exist,” adds McTavish. “It can shave hundreds, even thousands of dollars off annual premiums. And, when agents compete for a person’s business, they’re sure to apply any discounts for which the consumer qualifies.”
The articles available on the InsureMe site also encourage consumers to trim insurance rates by avoiding superfluous coverages. Consumers with little debt and no dependents can save money by lowering the amount of life insurance they carry. Drivers and homeowners alike can save money by increasing deductibles to an affordable amount and avoiding extra coverage on cars that are paid off and valuables that are no longer present in the home.
“Finding a happy medium is essential when it comes to insurance coverage,” says McTavish. “Shopping around for the best rate and making educated decisions about the kind of coverage you buy is the best way to get the most for your bottom dollar—and we hope the InsureMe site helps consumers do exactly that.”
Friday, November 4, 2005
Thursday, November 3, 2005
Sentry finalizes $200M deal for Viking Insurance
Sentry Insurance has finalized its purchase of Viking Insurance, a Madison provider of specialty automobile insurance.
Sentry purchased Viking Insurance from the Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Group plc, London. Sentry did not disclose terms of the deal, but Royal & SunAlliance said July 29 that Viking was being sold by its U.S. operations based in Charlotte, N.C., for $200 million in cash.
The deal includes all nonstandard auto business written by Viking Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, Peak Property and Casualty Insurance Corp., Viking County Mutual Insurance Co. and Guaranty National Insurance Co.
Viking sells insurance in 27 states, including states where Sentry does not currently sell auto insurance. The deal will add 650 employees to Sentry, along with offices in Madison; Freeport, Ill.; Englewood, Colo.; Salem, Ore.; Irvine, Calif.; and Goldsboro, N.C.
Stevens Point-based Sentry said the deal will double the size of its presence in the specialty auto insurance market. Sentry writes specialty automobile insurance through three subsidiaries -- Dairyland Insurance, Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Patriot General.
Viking adds more than $425 million in premium revenue, more than 7,900 independent agencies and two new states -- California and North Carolina -- to Sentry's coverage area.
With about 3,800 employees nationwide, Sentry Insurance is a national insurer providing property, casualty and life insurance products. The company's assets total more than $8.5 billion, and it has policyholders' surplus of $2.4 billion.
Viking was founded in 1971 and has been owned by Royal & SunAlliance since 1999. The company wrote direct premiums of more than $400 million in 2004, selling its auto policies through 7,900 independent agencies and brokers in 27 states.
Sentry purchased Viking Insurance from the Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Group plc, London. Sentry did not disclose terms of the deal, but Royal & SunAlliance said July 29 that Viking was being sold by its U.S. operations based in Charlotte, N.C., for $200 million in cash.
The deal includes all nonstandard auto business written by Viking Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, Peak Property and Casualty Insurance Corp., Viking County Mutual Insurance Co. and Guaranty National Insurance Co.
Viking sells insurance in 27 states, including states where Sentry does not currently sell auto insurance. The deal will add 650 employees to Sentry, along with offices in Madison; Freeport, Ill.; Englewood, Colo.; Salem, Ore.; Irvine, Calif.; and Goldsboro, N.C.
Stevens Point-based Sentry said the deal will double the size of its presence in the specialty auto insurance market. Sentry writes specialty automobile insurance through three subsidiaries -- Dairyland Insurance, Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Patriot General.
Viking adds more than $425 million in premium revenue, more than 7,900 independent agencies and two new states -- California and North Carolina -- to Sentry's coverage area.
With about 3,800 employees nationwide, Sentry Insurance is a national insurer providing property, casualty and life insurance products. The company's assets total more than $8.5 billion, and it has policyholders' surplus of $2.4 billion.
Viking was founded in 1971 and has been owned by Royal & SunAlliance since 1999. The company wrote direct premiums of more than $400 million in 2004, selling its auto policies through 7,900 independent agencies and brokers in 27 states.
Health insurance costs skyrocket!
How much worse can things get?
Health-insurance costs rose at double-digit rates last year. More than 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all --- and some experts believe the actual figure is much higher.
Wal-Mart store managers are being advised to look for young, healthy employees and to avoid hiring overweight and other high-risk applicants.
And locally, we've started down a road that will raise insurance costs --- and can lead to businesses screening out workers with costly health problems.
The latest news: ViaHealth is following large employers like Kodak and the University of Rochester and will "self-insure" its workers. What that means is that ViaHealth has left the Rochester area's "community-rating pool," in which insurance risks are spread across everyone in the pool. That may be good for ViaHealth's bottom line, but it's not good for employees of the businesses and institutions left in the pool --- especially those with health problems, and anybody working for a small business.
How serious is the ViaHealth news? We took that question to a longtime observer of Rochester's health-care industry, attorney Rene Reixach. Reixach is a partner with Woods Oviatt Gilman, specializing in health care. Previously, he was the executive director for the Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, a regional health planning organization, and he has written numerous articles about health care, including his monthly column for the Rochester Business Journal.
Reixach warned that we could be moving toward discrimination against less-healthy workers. And he said the University of Rochester and ViaHealth have hurt the community by pulling out of the community-rating pool. Following are edited excerpts of our conversation.
What does it mean that ViaHealth is becoming self-insured?
Self-insurance is a way that employers try to reduce the costs of health-care coverage, either paid by them or partially paid by employees. Instead of going to an insurance company and paying a premium for a community pool, which was what was historically done in Rochester, the employer takes on that risk. There isn't any insurance company. The employer takes on the role of the insurance company.
Typically, to avoid any catastrophic claim, the employer will purchase "stop-loss coverage." So if there is a large-ticket claim of some kind, let's say a heart transplant or something, there will be some insurance in the background to cover it.
So the employer is responsible for covering those claims. The employer is responsible for administering the plan. It might hire a third-party administrator, which may or may not be one of the insurance companies. Preferred Care, for example, is the third-party administrator for Kodak's self-insured plan.
So it is way to cut costs. But how do the costs actually get reduced?
Well, the advantage to the employer is that if the employees in the company pool are healthier than the community-average pool, the employer has less risk. Theoretically, that can save money in insurance coverage.
The company also saves money by being able to design its own benefits package and avoid various state mandates. I remember years ago when my daughter was born, pregnancy was not covered. This was voluntary; the state did not mandate coverage for it. The point is, the employer gets to decide what's in the benefits package.
The employers would most likely say that they can also tailor the plan to better fit the need of their employees.
And the community-rated pool?
Most of the other companies in the area buy into an insurance plan that is administered by one of the regular insurance companies --- Blue Cross or Preferred Care, for example. Their risk is spread among all of those people.
But isn't this partly about control of information, too -- information that is supposed to be confidential?
The employers --- if they are larger and more sophisticated, with some ability to analyze the data --- will say they have trouble getting information from insurance companies. And with a self-administered plan, they can see the data, subject to confidentiality rules, and they can analyze it and determine what types of wellness programs may be needed to help their employees.
That doesn't seem like a bad thing. Why should employees care?
A significant problem is the employee's appeal rights. If you have a dispute with a health insurer --- Blue Cross, Preferred Care, Aetna --- it's regular health insurance. The state has an external review process, so if you feel your treatment should have been covered and the insurer says no or your HMO says no, you first go through the internal appeal process. Then you go through the external appeal process run through the state. They hire experts. And they review the decision that was made by the insurer or HMO over whether something was medically necessary.
With a self-insured plan, you don't have those rights. Once you have gone through the internal appeals process of the plan, your only remedy is to go through the federal courts. That's a pretty daunting approach for most folks. Most people just can't do it. And the standards for an appeal in the federal courts are very pro-employer. It is a real uphill fight for the employee that most people are not prepared to take on.
So what does this mean to small businesses? You'd have to be a pretty large firm to self insure, right?
Well, that's the other side to this: what it does to the community rating when companies pull out. During the early 90's in the first half of the Clinton years, the GAO issued a report looking at why Rochester's health-care system was so successful. And one of the main reasons was that we were one of the last areas in the country that still had most of its health insurance through a community pool, or so-called community rating. Everybody paid the same premium, whether they were a small employer or a large employer.
The first significant dent in that was when Kodak pulled out. Then the university pulled out, and now we have ViaHealth pulling out. And when this happens, it shrinks the community pool. The risk is spread to a shrinking and smaller pool of people, so naturally the premiums go up.
Certainly the role of Kodak was critical because they set the tone for it, saying this is okay. Smaller businesses --- City Newspaper, if you will, or some of the small biotech companies that the university says they are trying to get started here --- are too small to self insure or go to experience rating, because if you have just one employee who gets seriously ill, it completely blows your budget.
And as more employers pull out, it leaves behind a smaller, sicker, and more expensive pool in the community pool. And everybody's rates go up, because you don't have the healthier employees to offset the risks.
So what is the trend? Where is this headed?
I can see how companies like Kodak can say: Hey, look --- we've got to do what we have to do to make a profit. We're not a touchy-feely monopoly anymore. We're struggling over here. We're either here to make money or we're not here at all.
But with the university, it's not the same thing. Yeah, they have to balance their budget. But they are not a business in the normal sense.
But they do and should have a different orientation than solely the bottom line. Remember, they get some benefits to help them. They don't pay sales tax, and they don't pay property taxes.
Yet to hear the new president and his predecessor, they see themselves as an engine of economic vitality and entrepreneurial spirit, and they're going to help start up and spin off some of these small businesses. Well, I don't know: sounds like a business to me. You know, if they're going to be a business, maybe they ought to pay sales tax and property taxes like every other business.
Yet they've managed to pull out of the community pool, and that has foisted the costs on the small businesses in the area --- including some of the small incubator businesses they say they are trying to start up. And they still have the benefit of those tax exemptions. How is that helping the community?
And the same thing is true of ViaHealth. Is it really any different than a for-profit hospital?
Anyone knows that you're not helping business, especially small businesses, by increasing the cost of their health-care insurance. I just think at some point, if you're a non-profit and you take advantage of some of the benefits, particularly the sales, real-estate, and income-tax exemptions, there are some obligations that go with it.
I think one has to ask: are these benefits deserved anymore? I know that is probably heresy, and I don't expect anyone to seriously take me up on it, but it is worth asking. I know if I were in Seligman's shoes [UR President Joel Seligman], I would say, Oh no; we really are a non-profit.
ViaHealth is a little different, because they don't do the level of research there. It is mostly about delivering care. But it's part of the same deterioration of the community fabric that was always part of our excellent health-care system. It was something we always prided ourselves on. Those of us who saw this happening with Kodak knew that once the genie was out of the bottle, we were never going to get it back in.
Maybe it's not a surprise that all of this happened. Maybe the surprise is how we managed to keep this going as long as we have.
But look at MonroeCounty. They've gone to an experience-based system. It's no longer Blue Choice. It's Blue 2 or something, a product for county employees. So if that's the position of Monroe County --- the representative of three-quarters of the metro area --- and they're saying all that matters is the bottom line for our budget, well, once again, that means that the rest of our premiums go up.
Is this a step toward selective coverage, selecting employees that pose less risk?
Oh, sure. Notwithstanding the laws that protect against discrimination based on a disability or something, if the employer is self-insured or experience-rated, and someone shows up with diabetes, cancer, or HIV, the employer may not want to assume the cost of that employee's care. Whereas with community rating, it's not going to impact the employer. It will impact the community at large, which it does anyway.
There are potentially serious issues for people with serious health problems, because employers may screen them out. And again, whether that runs afoul of discrimination laws, it's going to be a tough case for someone to prove. So there are serious consequences to all of this.
Will it lead to more use of temporary and contract workers, as well as more uninsured?
That's absolutely right, because as the cost to employers becomes too high, more small businesses will stop offering insurance coverage. And as the cost to employees becomes too high, they will stop buying it. Or they'll stop taking their meds. And we know that the uninsured just don't get the preventive care and don't seek medical attention until something is seriously wrong.
So the irony is, they end up in Strong or Rochester General's emergency rooms. We think the costs are high now: this becomes an extremely high-cost way of covering routine illnesses. It really has exposed the total disconnect between the economic theory behind all of this and the real world.
Isn't it supposed to be better when our hospitals compete?
Well, to some extent, yes. The fact that there is someone else in town may help to keep administrators on their toes a bit more, because maybe patients can demonstrate some degree of choice. But what we've really gotten is a lot of image advertising. How much money goes into all of this marketing? You'll never get a straight answer on it, but these things are increasing costs, not reducing them.
Everyone seems unhappy with the current system. Are we finally inching toward universal care?
No, just the opposite. We're moving further away from it.
Health-insurance costs rose at double-digit rates last year. More than 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all --- and some experts believe the actual figure is much higher.
Wal-Mart store managers are being advised to look for young, healthy employees and to avoid hiring overweight and other high-risk applicants.
And locally, we've started down a road that will raise insurance costs --- and can lead to businesses screening out workers with costly health problems.
The latest news: ViaHealth is following large employers like Kodak and the University of Rochester and will "self-insure" its workers. What that means is that ViaHealth has left the Rochester area's "community-rating pool," in which insurance risks are spread across everyone in the pool. That may be good for ViaHealth's bottom line, but it's not good for employees of the businesses and institutions left in the pool --- especially those with health problems, and anybody working for a small business.
How serious is the ViaHealth news? We took that question to a longtime observer of Rochester's health-care industry, attorney Rene Reixach. Reixach is a partner with Woods Oviatt Gilman, specializing in health care. Previously, he was the executive director for the Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, a regional health planning organization, and he has written numerous articles about health care, including his monthly column for the Rochester Business Journal.
Reixach warned that we could be moving toward discrimination against less-healthy workers. And he said the University of Rochester and ViaHealth have hurt the community by pulling out of the community-rating pool. Following are edited excerpts of our conversation.
What does it mean that ViaHealth is becoming self-insured?
Self-insurance is a way that employers try to reduce the costs of health-care coverage, either paid by them or partially paid by employees. Instead of going to an insurance company and paying a premium for a community pool, which was what was historically done in Rochester, the employer takes on that risk. There isn't any insurance company. The employer takes on the role of the insurance company.
Typically, to avoid any catastrophic claim, the employer will purchase "stop-loss coverage." So if there is a large-ticket claim of some kind, let's say a heart transplant or something, there will be some insurance in the background to cover it.
So the employer is responsible for covering those claims. The employer is responsible for administering the plan. It might hire a third-party administrator, which may or may not be one of the insurance companies. Preferred Care, for example, is the third-party administrator for Kodak's self-insured plan.
So it is way to cut costs. But how do the costs actually get reduced?
Well, the advantage to the employer is that if the employees in the company pool are healthier than the community-average pool, the employer has less risk. Theoretically, that can save money in insurance coverage.
The company also saves money by being able to design its own benefits package and avoid various state mandates. I remember years ago when my daughter was born, pregnancy was not covered. This was voluntary; the state did not mandate coverage for it. The point is, the employer gets to decide what's in the benefits package.
The employers would most likely say that they can also tailor the plan to better fit the need of their employees.
And the community-rated pool?
Most of the other companies in the area buy into an insurance plan that is administered by one of the regular insurance companies --- Blue Cross or Preferred Care, for example. Their risk is spread among all of those people.
But isn't this partly about control of information, too -- information that is supposed to be confidential?
The employers --- if they are larger and more sophisticated, with some ability to analyze the data --- will say they have trouble getting information from insurance companies. And with a self-administered plan, they can see the data, subject to confidentiality rules, and they can analyze it and determine what types of wellness programs may be needed to help their employees.
That doesn't seem like a bad thing. Why should employees care?
A significant problem is the employee's appeal rights. If you have a dispute with a health insurer --- Blue Cross, Preferred Care, Aetna --- it's regular health insurance. The state has an external review process, so if you feel your treatment should have been covered and the insurer says no or your HMO says no, you first go through the internal appeal process. Then you go through the external appeal process run through the state. They hire experts. And they review the decision that was made by the insurer or HMO over whether something was medically necessary.
With a self-insured plan, you don't have those rights. Once you have gone through the internal appeals process of the plan, your only remedy is to go through the federal courts. That's a pretty daunting approach for most folks. Most people just can't do it. And the standards for an appeal in the federal courts are very pro-employer. It is a real uphill fight for the employee that most people are not prepared to take on.
So what does this mean to small businesses? You'd have to be a pretty large firm to self insure, right?
Well, that's the other side to this: what it does to the community rating when companies pull out. During the early 90's in the first half of the Clinton years, the GAO issued a report looking at why Rochester's health-care system was so successful. And one of the main reasons was that we were one of the last areas in the country that still had most of its health insurance through a community pool, or so-called community rating. Everybody paid the same premium, whether they were a small employer or a large employer.
The first significant dent in that was when Kodak pulled out. Then the university pulled out, and now we have ViaHealth pulling out. And when this happens, it shrinks the community pool. The risk is spread to a shrinking and smaller pool of people, so naturally the premiums go up.
Certainly the role of Kodak was critical because they set the tone for it, saying this is okay. Smaller businesses --- City Newspaper, if you will, or some of the small biotech companies that the university says they are trying to get started here --- are too small to self insure or go to experience rating, because if you have just one employee who gets seriously ill, it completely blows your budget.
And as more employers pull out, it leaves behind a smaller, sicker, and more expensive pool in the community pool. And everybody's rates go up, because you don't have the healthier employees to offset the risks.
So what is the trend? Where is this headed?
I can see how companies like Kodak can say: Hey, look --- we've got to do what we have to do to make a profit. We're not a touchy-feely monopoly anymore. We're struggling over here. We're either here to make money or we're not here at all.
But with the university, it's not the same thing. Yeah, they have to balance their budget. But they are not a business in the normal sense.
But they do and should have a different orientation than solely the bottom line. Remember, they get some benefits to help them. They don't pay sales tax, and they don't pay property taxes.
Yet to hear the new president and his predecessor, they see themselves as an engine of economic vitality and entrepreneurial spirit, and they're going to help start up and spin off some of these small businesses. Well, I don't know: sounds like a business to me. You know, if they're going to be a business, maybe they ought to pay sales tax and property taxes like every other business.
Yet they've managed to pull out of the community pool, and that has foisted the costs on the small businesses in the area --- including some of the small incubator businesses they say they are trying to start up. And they still have the benefit of those tax exemptions. How is that helping the community?
And the same thing is true of ViaHealth. Is it really any different than a for-profit hospital?
Anyone knows that you're not helping business, especially small businesses, by increasing the cost of their health-care insurance. I just think at some point, if you're a non-profit and you take advantage of some of the benefits, particularly the sales, real-estate, and income-tax exemptions, there are some obligations that go with it.
I think one has to ask: are these benefits deserved anymore? I know that is probably heresy, and I don't expect anyone to seriously take me up on it, but it is worth asking. I know if I were in Seligman's shoes [UR President Joel Seligman], I would say, Oh no; we really are a non-profit.
ViaHealth is a little different, because they don't do the level of research there. It is mostly about delivering care. But it's part of the same deterioration of the community fabric that was always part of our excellent health-care system. It was something we always prided ourselves on. Those of us who saw this happening with Kodak knew that once the genie was out of the bottle, we were never going to get it back in.
Maybe it's not a surprise that all of this happened. Maybe the surprise is how we managed to keep this going as long as we have.
But look at MonroeCounty. They've gone to an experience-based system. It's no longer Blue Choice. It's Blue 2 or something, a product for county employees. So if that's the position of Monroe County --- the representative of three-quarters of the metro area --- and they're saying all that matters is the bottom line for our budget, well, once again, that means that the rest of our premiums go up.
Is this a step toward selective coverage, selecting employees that pose less risk?
Oh, sure. Notwithstanding the laws that protect against discrimination based on a disability or something, if the employer is self-insured or experience-rated, and someone shows up with diabetes, cancer, or HIV, the employer may not want to assume the cost of that employee's care. Whereas with community rating, it's not going to impact the employer. It will impact the community at large, which it does anyway.
There are potentially serious issues for people with serious health problems, because employers may screen them out. And again, whether that runs afoul of discrimination laws, it's going to be a tough case for someone to prove. So there are serious consequences to all of this.
Will it lead to more use of temporary and contract workers, as well as more uninsured?
That's absolutely right, because as the cost to employers becomes too high, more small businesses will stop offering insurance coverage. And as the cost to employees becomes too high, they will stop buying it. Or they'll stop taking their meds. And we know that the uninsured just don't get the preventive care and don't seek medical attention until something is seriously wrong.
So the irony is, they end up in Strong or Rochester General's emergency rooms. We think the costs are high now: this becomes an extremely high-cost way of covering routine illnesses. It really has exposed the total disconnect between the economic theory behind all of this and the real world.
Isn't it supposed to be better when our hospitals compete?
Well, to some extent, yes. The fact that there is someone else in town may help to keep administrators on their toes a bit more, because maybe patients can demonstrate some degree of choice. But what we've really gotten is a lot of image advertising. How much money goes into all of this marketing? You'll never get a straight answer on it, but these things are increasing costs, not reducing them.
Everyone seems unhappy with the current system. Are we finally inching toward universal care?
No, just the opposite. We're moving further away from it.
Panel Recommends a Limit on Tax Break for Health Insurance
President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform has recommended that the president and Congress limit tax breaks for employer-paid health insurance.
The panel recommended that taxes apply to employer-provided health insurance when it exceeds the average health insurance premium, which the panel estimated to be about $5,000 for an individual and $11,500 for a family. Under current rules, all employer-paid health insurance premiums are excluded from taxable income.
The recommendation was one of many that the panel made to overhaul the tax code. Other recommendations included an elimination of deductions for state and local taxes and changes to the tax brackets, according to USA Today.
The newspaper reports that the recommendations already have some critics. Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, called the proposal "unfair and unwise," according to the newspaper. Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, said the proposal was "small and quite complicated."
The panel recommended that taxes apply to employer-provided health insurance when it exceeds the average health insurance premium, which the panel estimated to be about $5,000 for an individual and $11,500 for a family. Under current rules, all employer-paid health insurance premiums are excluded from taxable income.
The recommendation was one of many that the panel made to overhaul the tax code. Other recommendations included an elimination of deductions for state and local taxes and changes to the tax brackets, according to USA Today.
The newspaper reports that the recommendations already have some critics. Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, called the proposal "unfair and unwise," according to the newspaper. Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, said the proposal was "small and quite complicated."
Sarasota health insurance agency sold
HeraldTribune.com
By JOHN HIELSCHER
SARASOTA -- A Michigan insurance provider has acquired Insurance & Benefit Consultants, a Sarasota agency that specializes in health insurance products.
Meadowbrook Insurance Group Inc. closed the deal Tuesday for IBC, one of the oldest Blue Cross Blue Shield general agencies in the state.
Meadowbrook already is in Sarasota with its Florida Preferred Administrators Inc. and Ameritrust Insurance Corp., which provide workers' compensation products.
The Southfield, Mich.-based company paid an undisclosed price to buy IBC's business from Michael R. Hays, who will maintain a consulting relationship.
Michael A. Moran, who previously worked for Meadowbrook in Michigan, was named president of IBC.
"This is a way to supplement their fee-based and commission revenue in the state," he said.
Moran will integrate his Blue Water Insurance Group, a local agency and payroll services company, into IBC.
The 27-year-old IBC sells group and individual health insurance and personal financial planning services through about 20 independently contracted producers, Moran said. They and five internal staffers will remain with the group.
"Consistent with Meadowbrook's goal to increase and diversify its fee and commission revenue, the acquisition of IBC geographically expands our agency operations and broadens our product offerings in the health and benefits field," President and Chief Executive Robert S. Cubbin said in a statement.
The 50-year-old Meadowbrook ranks among the top 25 insurance brokers in the country with more than $500 million in premiums under management.
It posted nine-month net income of $13 million, or 44 cents per share, up from $11.3 million, or 38 cents per share, one year earlier.
Shares of the company, which trades under the symbol "MIG," were selling for $5.67 at the close of trading Wednesday, up 18 cents on the New York Stock Exchange.
By JOHN HIELSCHER
SARASOTA -- A Michigan insurance provider has acquired Insurance & Benefit Consultants, a Sarasota agency that specializes in health insurance products.
Meadowbrook Insurance Group Inc. closed the deal Tuesday for IBC, one of the oldest Blue Cross Blue Shield general agencies in the state.
Meadowbrook already is in Sarasota with its Florida Preferred Administrators Inc. and Ameritrust Insurance Corp., which provide workers' compensation products.
The Southfield, Mich.-based company paid an undisclosed price to buy IBC's business from Michael R. Hays, who will maintain a consulting relationship.
Michael A. Moran, who previously worked for Meadowbrook in Michigan, was named president of IBC.
"This is a way to supplement their fee-based and commission revenue in the state," he said.
Moran will integrate his Blue Water Insurance Group, a local agency and payroll services company, into IBC.
The 27-year-old IBC sells group and individual health insurance and personal financial planning services through about 20 independently contracted producers, Moran said. They and five internal staffers will remain with the group.
"Consistent with Meadowbrook's goal to increase and diversify its fee and commission revenue, the acquisition of IBC geographically expands our agency operations and broadens our product offerings in the health and benefits field," President and Chief Executive Robert S. Cubbin said in a statement.
The 50-year-old Meadowbrook ranks among the top 25 insurance brokers in the country with more than $500 million in premiums under management.
It posted nine-month net income of $13 million, or 44 cents per share, up from $11.3 million, or 38 cents per share, one year earlier.
Shares of the company, which trades under the symbol "MIG," were selling for $5.67 at the close of trading Wednesday, up 18 cents on the New York Stock Exchange.
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Preexisting Conditions and Group Health Insurance
Preexisting conditions, once a dreaded policy exclusion, can now be a manageable part of your continuing group health insurance coverage even when you change or lose your job. But you need to understand the rules and use them to your advantage.
The Way It Was
Before 1997, people were faced with a significant loss of coverage when changing jobs and group health plans. One problem was preexisting conditions. Preexisting conditions were generally considered to be any medical conditions for which an individual (as well as his or her dependents) received medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment before that individual enrolled in a new health plan, even if it was years ago. The new group health plan could – and often did – deny coverage for such conditions.
Just how serious was such an exclusion? Very serious. You could be denied coverage for just about anything for which you had been previously treated, ranging from problems like eczema or kidney stones to serious, life-threatening conditions like cancer, diabetes, HIV, and heart disease. Such exclusions in a group health policy could result in a considerable or even an intolerable drain on an individual’s financial resources.
These exclusions often resulted in a socio-economic phenomenon known as “job lock.” This was the reluctance of some people to leave their current jobs for new, more advantageous employment because their new group health plan might not cover preexisting conditions.
HIPAA to the Rescue
The Health Insurance & Portability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, was designed, in part, to deal with the preexisting condition problem. It is a huge, complex law dealing with a lot of issues. We will focus on provisions affecting employer-provided group health insurance and preexisting conditions.
Let’s look at changing jobs and moving from one group health plan to another, a fairly common occurrence today in our mobile society.
Under HIPAA, preexisting condition exclusions must now be limited to those conditions treated within six months prior to a change in group health plans. No more looking back one, two, three or more years. Next, the exclusion period for covering such preexisting conditions is limited to a maximum of 12 months. It can be shorter. However, the time you were covered by your previous group health plan will apply toward the maximum exclusion period of your new one. The same is true for dependents covered by your old group health plan. When you leave your job, your former employer must provide you with a certificate of creditable coverage stating how long you (and any dependents) were covered by its group health plan.
An example will show how this works. Pat was covered by the group health plan at ABC Company for 12 months before taking a new job at XYZ Company which has a 12 month exclusion period for preexisting conditions. Pat’s new group health coverage at XYZ, however, will cover any preexisting conditions immediately because Pat’s previous 12 month coverage at ABC is applied toward the 12 month exclusion period and, in effect, cancels it. Had Pat been covered for only 8 months at ABC Company before moving on to XYZ, the exclusion period for any of Pat’s preexisting condition would be 4 months (12 minus 8).
The HIPAA rules apply to all employer-provided group health plans unless there has been a break of 63 days or more in a person’s health insurance coverage. If such a break occurs, an employee will face the maximum exclusion period for any preexisting conditions when starting a new job.
Note that there may be a 30 to 90 day delay before a new employee is eligible to apply for group coverage. This “waiting period” does not count toward the 63-day break in coverage. Its purpose is to allow employers and insurers to avoid the expense and paperwork of enrolling employees who turn out to be “short termers” and who leave after just a few days or weeks. Nonetheless, a new employee can be without group health coverage for up to 90 days due to a waiting period requirement. This could be a serious problem for someone undergoing expensive treatments or taking costly drugs, such as an HIV patient, for example.
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
To provide coverage during this waiting period, a new employee can take advantage of COBRA, an acronym for the federal law that allows individuals to continue their old group health coverage for up to 18 months or even longer in some cases. The individual must pay the entire cost of the coverage plus a 2% administration fee. This can run to over $200 a month for a single person, but is much cheaper and probably provides better coverage than an interim individual health policy.
COBRA can also be used to provide coverage for those who have lost or quit their jobs, have not yet found new employment and who therefore need continuing health insurance to avoid a 63-day break in coverage, as well as to meet their medical bills.
Finally, be aware that HIPAA does not guarantee that you will receive the same coverage under a new group health plan that you did under your old one. That is not what “portability” means. Your new plan may have different deductibles and co-payment amounts. It may limit the doctors you can see or happen to exclude coverage of certain conditions, such as pregnancy or HIV, that were covered under your old plan. If so, the preexisting condition provisions of HIPAA will not apply to those conditions excluded under your new one. In that case, you may want to extend COBRA coverage for as long as possible to fill gaps in your new group coverage.
Planning Considerations
In this era of frequent job changes, downsizing and early retirement, the loss of group health insurance could be catastrophic, especially if you suffer from a chronic or recurring condition. If you are thinking of changing jobs or you have lost your job, take the time to plan how you will maintain your health insurance coverage. Talk to the benefits administrator at your place of employment.
If that isn’t practical or is impossible because of the circumstances surrounding your leaving, check with an independent insurance consultant. Or you can log on to a web site such as www.insure.com that provides information about HIPAA, COBRA and ways to meet your health insurance needs.
You can also take advantage of alternative group health insurance sources. For gays and lesbians, if your companion’s group policy allows coverage for same-sex partners you may be able to enroll in his or her plan. If you belong to a large association or union, it may provide group health insurance to its members.
So with careful planning, you can make sure there are few or no gaps in your group health insurance coverage.
The Way It Was
Before 1997, people were faced with a significant loss of coverage when changing jobs and group health plans. One problem was preexisting conditions. Preexisting conditions were generally considered to be any medical conditions for which an individual (as well as his or her dependents) received medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment before that individual enrolled in a new health plan, even if it was years ago. The new group health plan could – and often did – deny coverage for such conditions.
Just how serious was such an exclusion? Very serious. You could be denied coverage for just about anything for which you had been previously treated, ranging from problems like eczema or kidney stones to serious, life-threatening conditions like cancer, diabetes, HIV, and heart disease. Such exclusions in a group health policy could result in a considerable or even an intolerable drain on an individual’s financial resources.
These exclusions often resulted in a socio-economic phenomenon known as “job lock.” This was the reluctance of some people to leave their current jobs for new, more advantageous employment because their new group health plan might not cover preexisting conditions.
HIPAA to the Rescue
The Health Insurance & Portability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, was designed, in part, to deal with the preexisting condition problem. It is a huge, complex law dealing with a lot of issues. We will focus on provisions affecting employer-provided group health insurance and preexisting conditions.
Let’s look at changing jobs and moving from one group health plan to another, a fairly common occurrence today in our mobile society.
Under HIPAA, preexisting condition exclusions must now be limited to those conditions treated within six months prior to a change in group health plans. No more looking back one, two, three or more years. Next, the exclusion period for covering such preexisting conditions is limited to a maximum of 12 months. It can be shorter. However, the time you were covered by your previous group health plan will apply toward the maximum exclusion period of your new one. The same is true for dependents covered by your old group health plan. When you leave your job, your former employer must provide you with a certificate of creditable coverage stating how long you (and any dependents) were covered by its group health plan.
An example will show how this works. Pat was covered by the group health plan at ABC Company for 12 months before taking a new job at XYZ Company which has a 12 month exclusion period for preexisting conditions. Pat’s new group health coverage at XYZ, however, will cover any preexisting conditions immediately because Pat’s previous 12 month coverage at ABC is applied toward the 12 month exclusion period and, in effect, cancels it. Had Pat been covered for only 8 months at ABC Company before moving on to XYZ, the exclusion period for any of Pat’s preexisting condition would be 4 months (12 minus 8).
The HIPAA rules apply to all employer-provided group health plans unless there has been a break of 63 days or more in a person’s health insurance coverage. If such a break occurs, an employee will face the maximum exclusion period for any preexisting conditions when starting a new job.
Note that there may be a 30 to 90 day delay before a new employee is eligible to apply for group coverage. This “waiting period” does not count toward the 63-day break in coverage. Its purpose is to allow employers and insurers to avoid the expense and paperwork of enrolling employees who turn out to be “short termers” and who leave after just a few days or weeks. Nonetheless, a new employee can be without group health coverage for up to 90 days due to a waiting period requirement. This could be a serious problem for someone undergoing expensive treatments or taking costly drugs, such as an HIV patient, for example.
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
To provide coverage during this waiting period, a new employee can take advantage of COBRA, an acronym for the federal law that allows individuals to continue their old group health coverage for up to 18 months or even longer in some cases. The individual must pay the entire cost of the coverage plus a 2% administration fee. This can run to over $200 a month for a single person, but is much cheaper and probably provides better coverage than an interim individual health policy.
COBRA can also be used to provide coverage for those who have lost or quit their jobs, have not yet found new employment and who therefore need continuing health insurance to avoid a 63-day break in coverage, as well as to meet their medical bills.
Finally, be aware that HIPAA does not guarantee that you will receive the same coverage under a new group health plan that you did under your old one. That is not what “portability” means. Your new plan may have different deductibles and co-payment amounts. It may limit the doctors you can see or happen to exclude coverage of certain conditions, such as pregnancy or HIV, that were covered under your old plan. If so, the preexisting condition provisions of HIPAA will not apply to those conditions excluded under your new one. In that case, you may want to extend COBRA coverage for as long as possible to fill gaps in your new group coverage.
Planning Considerations
In this era of frequent job changes, downsizing and early retirement, the loss of group health insurance could be catastrophic, especially if you suffer from a chronic or recurring condition. If you are thinking of changing jobs or you have lost your job, take the time to plan how you will maintain your health insurance coverage. Talk to the benefits administrator at your place of employment.
If that isn’t practical or is impossible because of the circumstances surrounding your leaving, check with an independent insurance consultant. Or you can log on to a web site such as www.insure.com that provides information about HIPAA, COBRA and ways to meet your health insurance needs.
You can also take advantage of alternative group health insurance sources. For gays and lesbians, if your companion’s group policy allows coverage for same-sex partners you may be able to enroll in his or her plan. If you belong to a large association or union, it may provide group health insurance to its members.
So with careful planning, you can make sure there are few or no gaps in your group health insurance coverage.
Insurance costs tied to habits
By David Irvin
Montgomery Advertiser
Employers in the state will save about $20 million in 2006 thanks to a reduction of payments into the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund.
Speaking Tuesday at the first of seven economic roundtable events in the state, Gov. Bob Riley told business owners and community leaders that business owners would pay a lower rate into the fund next year because the state's economic recovery had reduced the drain on the fund.
"With this change, Alabama's employees will be able to keep more of what they've worked for, and they can invest it in their businesses and in their employees," Riley said.
The fund is used to pay unemployment compensation benefits for qualified Alabamians separated from work through no fault of their own, the release said.
Alabama employers are paying the highest rate allowed by state law, but the rate fluctuates annually according to the amount of reserves in place.
However, the good news of the day soon was replaced by extended discussions on some of the most challenging business topics.
Experts spoke to area business and government administrators about how they can reduce their health and workers' compensation insurance costs.
Cary Kuhlmann, executive director of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama, spoke about health insurance costs and how Alabama's tremendous health problems lead to high insurance costs here.
Alabama finished worse than the U.S. average in obesity rates and various death rates in the past couple of decades, he showed.
"We are a sick state, and a lot of it is because of our behavior," Kuhlmann said.
Small businesses and municipalities are feeling the painful impact of higher insurance costs.
W.C. Hayes is mayor of Maplesville, a community of about 600. He said his insurance costs have "skyrocketed" this year. Because of a cash crunch in the town's budget, Hayes' 15 employees are bearing a greater portion of their insurance costs now.
"People don't like change," he said.
Kuhlmann agrees. He cited a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation that showed 45 percent of employees are worried about having to pay more for their health insurance.
By comparison, only 24 percent of the employees were worried about not being able to pay their rent or mortgage.
Every year American companies spend incomprehensible amounts of money on health insurance. In 2003, the country, as a whole, came close to spending $1.7 trillion, with the largest chunk going toward hospital care.
Direct pharmaceutical marketing to consumers is driving some of the cost growth, but so is the increasingly elderly population in the nation and something called "defensive medicine," a practice used by doctors to hedge against the possibility of tort claims.
One of the biggest drivers of rising health care costs are behaviors that lead to increased sickness and health care spending. For instance, tobacco use, is a leading contributor to heart disease and cancer, which were the top two killers in Alabama three years ago, Kuhlmann said.
Montgomery Advertiser
Employers in the state will save about $20 million in 2006 thanks to a reduction of payments into the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund.
Speaking Tuesday at the first of seven economic roundtable events in the state, Gov. Bob Riley told business owners and community leaders that business owners would pay a lower rate into the fund next year because the state's economic recovery had reduced the drain on the fund.
"With this change, Alabama's employees will be able to keep more of what they've worked for, and they can invest it in their businesses and in their employees," Riley said.
The fund is used to pay unemployment compensation benefits for qualified Alabamians separated from work through no fault of their own, the release said.
Alabama employers are paying the highest rate allowed by state law, but the rate fluctuates annually according to the amount of reserves in place.
However, the good news of the day soon was replaced by extended discussions on some of the most challenging business topics.
Experts spoke to area business and government administrators about how they can reduce their health and workers' compensation insurance costs.
Cary Kuhlmann, executive director of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama, spoke about health insurance costs and how Alabama's tremendous health problems lead to high insurance costs here.
Alabama finished worse than the U.S. average in obesity rates and various death rates in the past couple of decades, he showed.
"We are a sick state, and a lot of it is because of our behavior," Kuhlmann said.
Small businesses and municipalities are feeling the painful impact of higher insurance costs.
W.C. Hayes is mayor of Maplesville, a community of about 600. He said his insurance costs have "skyrocketed" this year. Because of a cash crunch in the town's budget, Hayes' 15 employees are bearing a greater portion of their insurance costs now.
"People don't like change," he said.
Kuhlmann agrees. He cited a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation that showed 45 percent of employees are worried about having to pay more for their health insurance.
By comparison, only 24 percent of the employees were worried about not being able to pay their rent or mortgage.
Every year American companies spend incomprehensible amounts of money on health insurance. In 2003, the country, as a whole, came close to spending $1.7 trillion, with the largest chunk going toward hospital care.
Direct pharmaceutical marketing to consumers is driving some of the cost growth, but so is the increasingly elderly population in the nation and something called "defensive medicine," a practice used by doctors to hedge against the possibility of tort claims.
One of the biggest drivers of rising health care costs are behaviors that lead to increased sickness and health care spending. For instance, tobacco use, is a leading contributor to heart disease and cancer, which were the top two killers in Alabama three years ago, Kuhlmann said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
