By Scott Finn
Staff writer
Insurance companies would find it easier to drop risky homeowners as customers in West Virginia, under a bill approved Monday by a legislative committee.
Every year, an insurance company could refuse to renew policies for up to 1 percent of homeowners in each county the company serves, as long as the company did not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion or marital status.
A company could choose to operate under the new law or stick with the current law, which allows them to drop longtime policyholders only for specific reasons, such as fraud, conviction of arson, fire or safety violations, or failure to pay property taxes two years in a row.
The Legislature passed a similar “easy-drop” bill for auto insurance last year. Since then, State Farm Insurance has started selling new auto insurance in the state again.
State Farm no longer writes new insurance policies for homeowners in West Virginia.
Under the bill passed Monday, a homeowner who is dropped and cannot find other insurance could sign up for a state-sponsored policy. The bare-bones policy would cover fire but not general liability claims, and would pay no more than $100,000. A homeowner with a mortgage could lose his home if he could not find adequate homeowners insurance.
Delegate Mike Caputo, D-Marion, was the only member of the interim committee to vote against the bill. He objected to insurance companies being able to drop a customer for any reason.
“I think insurance companies have many reasons to nonrenew a customer already,” he said.
Despite the near-unanimous vote, at least four lawmakers raised their hands to be kept off the list of bill sponsors.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Health insurance credits `doomed,'
By John Strahinich
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
A Bay State family of four making $36,800 a year would have to spend 17 percent of its pretax income to get the cheapest individual health insurance policy on the market, according to researchers at Harvard University's School of Public Health.
That's one huge reason proposals to use tax credits to help middle-class families pay for individual health insurance premiums are ``doomed to failure,'' said Harvard's Nancy Turnbull, who helped write the new Commonwealth Fund study comparing health insurance policies in seven states, including Massachusetts.
``It's like taking out a health care mortgage,'' Turnbull added. ``That just shows you the size of the tax credits needed.''
Added report co-author Nancy Kane: ``The market can serve healthy people who don't need insurance, or sick people who do. But it has a hard time serving both.''
Turnbull credits the commonwealth with doing a better job than most states of balancing those two consumer groups. ``On average, prices are higher here,'' she said, ``but coverage is more broadly available.''
Even so, both authors are advocates of helping the working uninsured buy into group programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
A Bay State family of four making $36,800 a year would have to spend 17 percent of its pretax income to get the cheapest individual health insurance policy on the market, according to researchers at Harvard University's School of Public Health.
That's one huge reason proposals to use tax credits to help middle-class families pay for individual health insurance premiums are ``doomed to failure,'' said Harvard's Nancy Turnbull, who helped write the new Commonwealth Fund study comparing health insurance policies in seven states, including Massachusetts.
``It's like taking out a health care mortgage,'' Turnbull added. ``That just shows you the size of the tax credits needed.''
Added report co-author Nancy Kane: ``The market can serve healthy people who don't need insurance, or sick people who do. But it has a hard time serving both.''
Turnbull credits the commonwealth with doing a better job than most states of balancing those two consumer groups. ``On average, prices are higher here,'' she said, ``but coverage is more broadly available.''
Even so, both authors are advocates of helping the working uninsured buy into group programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
States Urged to Ensure Health Insurance for All
By Karen Pallarito
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, Feb. 8 (HealthDay News) -- States should adopt stricter regulations to ensure that individual health insurance is available and affordable for Americans everywhere, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health report.
Their research, based on a seven-state analysis of regulatory reforms, exposes many inadequacies within the current system. The problems include exorbitant premiums, high rates of individuals being rejected for coverage, and lack of coverage for important benefits, such as maternity, mental health and prescription drugs.
"We think regulation can help make the market fairer, and we think that regulation can make coverage more available to people who don't have coverage at the moment," said co-author Nancy C. Turnbull, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard and a former first deputy commissioner of insurance in Massachusetts.
If states fail to act, the federal government should impose a set of standards that states must abide by, the authors recommended in the report, which received support from The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group supporting research on health and social issues.
The Harvard reform plan comes as President Bush looks to expand health coverage to people without insurance. His fiscal year 2006 budget blueprint calls for providing tax credits to encourage individuals to buy their own coverage.
But the Harvard analysis suggests tax credits won't succeed unless the individual insurance market provides reasonably comprehensive coverage that is available and affordable to those who need it.
Turnbull said tax credits will mostly benefit younger, healthier people in states that are less regulated. She believes these credits are unlikely to have a major effect on expanding coverage to the nation's 45 million uninsured, however.
"Tax credits are not going to work very well for most people in terms of making coverage affordable," she said.
But proponents of a free-market approach say adopting the Harvard report's suggested reforms would only make things worse.
"These ideas are just horrible," asserted Greg Scandlen, director of the Center for Consumer Driven Health Care at the Galen Institute in Alexandria, Va.
New Jersey, which enacted stricter regulations more than a decade ago, is a prime example, he said. A healthy 25-year-old male with a $500 deductible health insurance policy pays about $450 a month for individual coverage, more than three times what his counterpart would pay in Iowa, which has much less stringent regulations in place, the Harvard report shows.
What's more, the number of uninsured in New Jersey has been increasing quite dramatically, according to Scandlen.
"My contention is the market is broken because of the regulatory policies that groups like this have pushed for the last 20 years," he asserted.
Regulators face a difficult trade-off between making insurance available to people with chronic or expensive health conditions and making it affordable for healthy, low-risk individuals, the authors explained.
"The states that have taken a less-regulated approach have cheaper products for people who are younger and healthier, but that comes at the cost of having insurance that is less available" to older, sicker patients, Turnbull said.
New Jersey, for one, requires insurers to charge the same premium for a plan, regardless of an individual's age, gender or health status. That means a high-risk male, age 60, pays the same as a healthy 25-year-old male. In states with weaker requirements, there is a fourfold to almost 15-fold difference in the rates charged to those two segments of the population, the study found.
Insurance regulators continue to grapple with these problems of affordability and access.
"There needs to be some way -- a more effective way -- of spreading risk, but pricing the young, healthy people out of the market is counterproductive," said Sandy Praeger, Kansas' insurance commissioner. Her state is exploring the notion of using "reinsurance" to spread the risks of sicker patients across a base of healthier individuals.
Praeger, who chaired the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Health Insurance and Managed Care Committee last year, praised the Harvard report for nicely laying out the problems in the individual insurance market and offering possible solutions. But those ideas probably won't stick in an environment "when less regulation, and allowing the market to work its magic" tends to be the favored approach, she said.
"The bottom line is it's not about health insurance; it's about health-care costs," Praeger added. Unless insurers are required to cover everyone without regard to health status, "I don't see how these folks that have any kind of an illness are going to be able to afford coverage," she said.
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, Feb. 8 (HealthDay News) -- States should adopt stricter regulations to ensure that individual health insurance is available and affordable for Americans everywhere, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health report.
Their research, based on a seven-state analysis of regulatory reforms, exposes many inadequacies within the current system. The problems include exorbitant premiums, high rates of individuals being rejected for coverage, and lack of coverage for important benefits, such as maternity, mental health and prescription drugs.
"We think regulation can help make the market fairer, and we think that regulation can make coverage more available to people who don't have coverage at the moment," said co-author Nancy C. Turnbull, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard and a former first deputy commissioner of insurance in Massachusetts.
If states fail to act, the federal government should impose a set of standards that states must abide by, the authors recommended in the report, which received support from The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group supporting research on health and social issues.
The Harvard reform plan comes as President Bush looks to expand health coverage to people without insurance. His fiscal year 2006 budget blueprint calls for providing tax credits to encourage individuals to buy their own coverage.
But the Harvard analysis suggests tax credits won't succeed unless the individual insurance market provides reasonably comprehensive coverage that is available and affordable to those who need it.
Turnbull said tax credits will mostly benefit younger, healthier people in states that are less regulated. She believes these credits are unlikely to have a major effect on expanding coverage to the nation's 45 million uninsured, however.
"Tax credits are not going to work very well for most people in terms of making coverage affordable," she said.
But proponents of a free-market approach say adopting the Harvard report's suggested reforms would only make things worse.
"These ideas are just horrible," asserted Greg Scandlen, director of the Center for Consumer Driven Health Care at the Galen Institute in Alexandria, Va.
New Jersey, which enacted stricter regulations more than a decade ago, is a prime example, he said. A healthy 25-year-old male with a $500 deductible health insurance policy pays about $450 a month for individual coverage, more than three times what his counterpart would pay in Iowa, which has much less stringent regulations in place, the Harvard report shows.
What's more, the number of uninsured in New Jersey has been increasing quite dramatically, according to Scandlen.
"My contention is the market is broken because of the regulatory policies that groups like this have pushed for the last 20 years," he asserted.
Regulators face a difficult trade-off between making insurance available to people with chronic or expensive health conditions and making it affordable for healthy, low-risk individuals, the authors explained.
"The states that have taken a less-regulated approach have cheaper products for people who are younger and healthier, but that comes at the cost of having insurance that is less available" to older, sicker patients, Turnbull said.
New Jersey, for one, requires insurers to charge the same premium for a plan, regardless of an individual's age, gender or health status. That means a high-risk male, age 60, pays the same as a healthy 25-year-old male. In states with weaker requirements, there is a fourfold to almost 15-fold difference in the rates charged to those two segments of the population, the study found.
Insurance regulators continue to grapple with these problems of affordability and access.
"There needs to be some way -- a more effective way -- of spreading risk, but pricing the young, healthy people out of the market is counterproductive," said Sandy Praeger, Kansas' insurance commissioner. Her state is exploring the notion of using "reinsurance" to spread the risks of sicker patients across a base of healthier individuals.
Praeger, who chaired the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Health Insurance and Managed Care Committee last year, praised the Harvard report for nicely laying out the problems in the individual insurance market and offering possible solutions. But those ideas probably won't stick in an environment "when less regulation, and allowing the market to work its magic" tends to be the favored approach, she said.
"The bottom line is it's not about health insurance; it's about health-care costs," Praeger added. Unless insurers are required to cover everyone without regard to health status, "I don't see how these folks that have any kind of an illness are going to be able to afford coverage," she said.
Monday, February 7, 2005
Car insurance trouble when teens drive teens
Trouble when teens drive teens
By The Sentinel, February 6, 2005
Common sense tells you that a car accident is likely to be worse when an inexperienced driver is behind the wheel.
So, it's not surprising to see a study that says children are likely to be three times more seriously injured in a crash where a teen-ager is behind the wheel.
Partners for Child Passenger Safety says 40 percent of the children driven by teens were younger than 13, a factor that suggests some parents rely on teens to transport younger siblings.
That's not a shocker either, since families where both parents work, or where the parent is single and holds a job, are likely to need help with transportation. Predictably, they feel some relief when a child is old enough to be licensed and pick up some of the trips to dentists, after-school sports and so on.
The trouble is that seat-belt usage is significantly lower when teens drive younger children. Teens also are more likely to let a little brother or sister ride in the front seat.
These were findings when the child safety group reviewed 12,163 State Farm cases in which 19,111 children were involved. State Farm Insurance and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia funded the study.
So on top of the possibility that teens may take more risks, the look at seat belt passage shows that while 89.9 percent of children use them when with adults, the percentage drops to 72 when a teen is at the helm.
This isn't something that the police can control by giving tickets, especially in Pennsylvania, where seat belt violations are a secondary offense.
So Dr. Flaura Winston, the study's author, recommends changing the state's laws to limit who can ride with teens. The idea is to make ridership subject to experience levels.
This has come up before in a more general way involving teens driving with teens, when they're less likely to use seat belts and more likely to distract the driver or egg him on to take excessive risks.
Parents need to be alert to the accident and injury numbers and the risk they take in letting teenagers drive completely unsupervised.
It's tough to hold out on a teenage driver who itches to be behind the wheel. It's easy to give in when giving a teen the keys makes the parent's life a little easier.
But these are excuses that don't cut it after an accident that causes injuries and death.
It's impossible to monitor what a teenager does every moment, but the parent never is off-duty.
So, be extra careful when allowing teens to drive their siblings and friends around. We now have a study that demonstrates the risk involved.
By The Sentinel, February 6, 2005
Common sense tells you that a car accident is likely to be worse when an inexperienced driver is behind the wheel.
So, it's not surprising to see a study that says children are likely to be three times more seriously injured in a crash where a teen-ager is behind the wheel.
Partners for Child Passenger Safety says 40 percent of the children driven by teens were younger than 13, a factor that suggests some parents rely on teens to transport younger siblings.
That's not a shocker either, since families where both parents work, or where the parent is single and holds a job, are likely to need help with transportation. Predictably, they feel some relief when a child is old enough to be licensed and pick up some of the trips to dentists, after-school sports and so on.
The trouble is that seat-belt usage is significantly lower when teens drive younger children. Teens also are more likely to let a little brother or sister ride in the front seat.
These were findings when the child safety group reviewed 12,163 State Farm cases in which 19,111 children were involved. State Farm Insurance and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia funded the study.
So on top of the possibility that teens may take more risks, the look at seat belt passage shows that while 89.9 percent of children use them when with adults, the percentage drops to 72 when a teen is at the helm.
This isn't something that the police can control by giving tickets, especially in Pennsylvania, where seat belt violations are a secondary offense.
So Dr. Flaura Winston, the study's author, recommends changing the state's laws to limit who can ride with teens. The idea is to make ridership subject to experience levels.
This has come up before in a more general way involving teens driving with teens, when they're less likely to use seat belts and more likely to distract the driver or egg him on to take excessive risks.
Parents need to be alert to the accident and injury numbers and the risk they take in letting teenagers drive completely unsupervised.
It's tough to hold out on a teenage driver who itches to be behind the wheel. It's easy to give in when giving a teen the keys makes the parent's life a little easier.
But these are excuses that don't cut it after an accident that causes injuries and death.
It's impossible to monitor what a teenager does every moment, but the parent never is off-duty.
So, be extra careful when allowing teens to drive their siblings and friends around. We now have a study that demonstrates the risk involved.
Wellpoint shares decline
Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks failed to advance after their biggest weekly rally in three months as some investors said share prices already reflect prospects for earnings growth.
``I don't know where the catalyst is,'' said Cummins Catherwood, who helps manage $850 million at Walnut Asset Management in Philadelphia. ``The stock market is carrying prices that are generally adequate. I'm having a hard time running out there and establishing new positions and I bet I'm in the majority.''
Shares of WellPoint Inc. declined after the No. 1 U.S. health insurer said fourth-quarter profit fell. Delta Air Lines Inc. led carriers higher as oil prices retreated....
...WellPoint slid $3.71 to $121.18. Profit last quarter declined 12 percent to $184.5 million, the company said, because of expenses from a debt buyback and the merger that formed the company.
Humana Inc. lost $1.67 to $32.98 even after the biggest manager of health plans for the U.S. military raised its forecast for 2005. The company's fourth-quarter profit fell 29 percent because of timing of payments from the company's newest Tricare military contract.
``I don't know where the catalyst is,'' said Cummins Catherwood, who helps manage $850 million at Walnut Asset Management in Philadelphia. ``The stock market is carrying prices that are generally adequate. I'm having a hard time running out there and establishing new positions and I bet I'm in the majority.''
Shares of WellPoint Inc. declined after the No. 1 U.S. health insurer said fourth-quarter profit fell. Delta Air Lines Inc. led carriers higher as oil prices retreated....
...WellPoint slid $3.71 to $121.18. Profit last quarter declined 12 percent to $184.5 million, the company said, because of expenses from a debt buyback and the merger that formed the company.
Humana Inc. lost $1.67 to $32.98 even after the biggest manager of health plans for the U.S. military raised its forecast for 2005. The company's fourth-quarter profit fell 29 percent because of timing of payments from the company's newest Tricare military contract.
Sunday, February 6, 2005
NC Rate Bureau seeks hike in auto insurance premiums
The NC Rate Bureau is looking to increase automobile insurance rates by 11.5 percent this year.
Last year, the state insurance department negotiated no change in the rates following a Rate Bureau request to raise rates by 12.2 percent.
Sherri Hubbard, a spokeswoman with State Insurance Commissioner Jim Long's office, said in a prepared statement that the department is unsure if the proposed increase is warranted.
"It will take us some time to fully review this filing, and the Rate Bureau is calculating things differently this year," Hubbard said. "Upon initial inspection, we believe this request may not be based on worsening experience -- that is, more claims being paid out -- but rather as the result of new methodology."
Last year, the state insurance department negotiated no change in the rates following a Rate Bureau request to raise rates by 12.2 percent.
Sherri Hubbard, a spokeswoman with State Insurance Commissioner Jim Long's office, said in a prepared statement that the department is unsure if the proposed increase is warranted.
"It will take us some time to fully review this filing, and the Rate Bureau is calculating things differently this year," Hubbard said. "Upon initial inspection, we believe this request may not be based on worsening experience -- that is, more claims being paid out -- but rather as the result of new methodology."
TOWN HOPES TO RETAIN COVERAGE FROM BLUE CROSS
By Ryan Blessing - The Sun Staff
N. STONINGTON - As budget talks begin to heat up, local officials hope the town can retain Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island as the health insurer for North Stonington employees.
As it stands, the company has signaled its intent to stop the practice of insuring out-of-state municipalities in the coming fiscal year, North Stonington First Selectman Nicholas H. Mullane II said.
'The new commissioner has taken the position that Blue Cross of Rhode Island should only cover people in their service area,' Mullane said.
About 125 to 150 town employees are covered through Blue Cross, Mullane said. Town employees regularly use facilities in Rhode Island, he said.
Should the town have to switch carriers, it would have options in Connecticut, such as Anthem Blue Cross. But charges would be much higher and no plan would be as attractive as Blue Cross, Mullane said.
'It has been a good deal all around for performance and service,' Mullane said. 'The pricing is better,' than other alternatives, he said.
Blue Cross of Rhode Island suffered a legal blow Thursday when the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that the state could award the contract for its employees' health insurance to UnitedHealthcare, over the objections of competitor Blue Cross & Blue Shield.
The contract covers some 52,000 state workers, retirees and their families. The state said it would save $25 million dollars by going with United, though Blue Cross disputed that number.
Blue Cross held the previous three-year contract, which expired at the end of the year, and sued after of UnitedHealthcare of New England won the new contract. Blue Cross spokesman Scott Fraser said the company was disappointed, but was moving on.
Mullane said he would like to have some idea in the comin
N. STONINGTON - As budget talks begin to heat up, local officials hope the town can retain Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island as the health insurer for North Stonington employees.
As it stands, the company has signaled its intent to stop the practice of insuring out-of-state municipalities in the coming fiscal year, North Stonington First Selectman Nicholas H. Mullane II said.
'The new commissioner has taken the position that Blue Cross of Rhode Island should only cover people in their service area,' Mullane said.
About 125 to 150 town employees are covered through Blue Cross, Mullane said. Town employees regularly use facilities in Rhode Island, he said.
Should the town have to switch carriers, it would have options in Connecticut, such as Anthem Blue Cross. But charges would be much higher and no plan would be as attractive as Blue Cross, Mullane said.
'It has been a good deal all around for performance and service,' Mullane said. 'The pricing is better,' than other alternatives, he said.
Blue Cross of Rhode Island suffered a legal blow Thursday when the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that the state could award the contract for its employees' health insurance to UnitedHealthcare, over the objections of competitor Blue Cross & Blue Shield.
The contract covers some 52,000 state workers, retirees and their families. The state said it would save $25 million dollars by going with United, though Blue Cross disputed that number.
Blue Cross held the previous three-year contract, which expired at the end of the year, and sued after of UnitedHealthcare of New England won the new contract. Blue Cross spokesman Scott Fraser said the company was disappointed, but was moving on.
Mullane said he would like to have some idea in the comin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
