Insurance companies back grass-roots movements

BY BEATRICE E. GARCIA
MiamiHerald.com

Borrowing a page from consumer groups that reach out to the masses to sway lawmakers, two major insurers are backing grass-roots efforts to bring about major reforms in home and auto insurance regulation.
Don't let the names fool you.
The muscle -- and money -- behind Floridians for Lower Insurance Costs is State Farm, which insures one out of every five cars in Florida. It opposes efforts to extend Florida's no-fault auto insurance law.
ProtectingAmerica.org is the brainchild of Allstate, the Northbrook, Ill., insurer. After the devastating 2004 hurricane season, the company began working to build a coalition to better prepare Americans to deal with natural disaster, says Edward T. Collins, Allstate's managing council and national director for the organization.
''This isn't an insurance issue. It's a consumer protection issue. It's homeland security. It's a national economics issue,'' adds Collins.
The group is lobbying for the creation of a national catastrophe fund to serve as a back-up to any state catastrophe funds already in place, similar to the one created in Florida after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. It's also advocating mitigation.
Allstate has invested about $1 million in this effort so far, says Collins. The call for a national cat fund isn't new -- it was first floated after Andrew -- but it now has new momentum.
The past two storm seasons ''taught us that there's no state or industry that has the capacity to rebuild a region entirely by itself,'' says George Grawe, Allstate Floridian's executive vice president for government relations in Florida.
A big addition to Allstate's group has been State Farm. Together, the two companies insure more than 50 percent of all the homes in this country.
The group also includes more than 60 state agencies, emergency managers, government officials, nonprofit environmental and minority groups.
The group has taken out full-page ads in The Wall Street Journal, hoping to educate consumers on the issue and point them to its website.
State Farm is still in the go-it-alone mode in its effort to eliminate portions of the state's auto insurance regulations. This session, Florida lawmakers will decide whether to continue the no-fault provision in the state's auto insurance law, which mandates medical coverage for drivers and their passengers.
Mark Delegal, State Farm's top lobbyist in Tallahassee, says the company believes it needs to build a broader coalition for its position because there's no consensus among insurers.
Plus, there are powerful groups with big stakes in this debate including doctors, clinic owners, hospitals and attorneys.
''It's an uphill battle. That's why we needed voter support,'' Delegal says.
For now, State Farm is the main support behind this effort, willing to put in ''what's necessary to get the desired results,'' he adds.

Calif. Expands Low-Cost Auto Insurance Program to Three Counties

March 1, 2006

California Insurance Commissioner Garamendi has announced the expansion of the California Low Cost Automobile Insurance program to Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties. The announcement follows his final determination that the program, which provides eligible low income good drivers with state-required liability insurance for under $400 a year, is necessary and desirable in those counties.

Recent legislation, Senate Bill 20 (Escutia), sponsored by the Commissioner, expanded the program to the counties of Alameda, Fresno, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego, effective April 1, 2006. The legislation also authorized the Commissioner to launch the program throughout the state based upon his determination of need and a public meeting to solicit public input. The Commissioner announced his plans last month to expand the program to eight additional counties: Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Kern, Imperial, and Stanislaus.

"More than 3 million motorists travel on California roads every day without auto insurance," said Commissioner Garamendi. "We must address this dangerous problem. This program is an affordable option for qualified low-income drivers. Why risk driving without insurance when you can afford it?"

Sen. Martha Escutia, (D-Montebello), agreed. "It's clear that the high cost of purchasing auto insurance coverage today is closing the door to good working families that want to meet California's financial responsibility laws," Sen. Escutia said. "The expansion of the Low Cost Auto Insurance Program to additional California counties is a blessing for many working families who are searching for affordable auto insurance."

On January 31, 2006, the Commissioner held town hall meetings in Sacramento and Stockton (San Joaquin county), and on February 8th in Richmond (Contra Costa). The meetings were designed to gauge the need and benefits of the program in those respective areas. "Local leaders and residents were enthusiastic about the program. They couldn't wait for it to be available in their communities," said the Commissioner.

Town hall meetings were also recently held in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Imperial counties. The Commissioner's final determination on expanding the program to those communities is expected shortly. Other town hall meetings are tentatively scheduled in Modesto (Stanislaus) on March 8 and Kern County on March 13th.

"Based on certain factors, including a consideration of the number or percentage of uninsured motorists; the size of the low-income population; the price of insurance in the voluntary market; and the public's expression of interest in the program, I have determined that the program is needed in Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties," said Commissioner Garamendi. "We anticipate having the program established and operational in these counties by summer 2006."

The California Low Cost Automobile Insurance program was created in 1999 to provide low-income good drivers with access to affordable automobile insurance. Currently, the program is only available in Los Angeles and San Francisco counties. With the additional counties permitted by SB 20, eligible motorists from 16 counties will soon be able to take advantage of the program. Program policies are issued by California licensed insurers and the program is administered by the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan. Rates are set in each county so that premiums are sufficient to cover losses and expenses in each county.

To be eligible for the program, applicants must be a "good driver" – no more than one at-fault property damage only accident, or one point for a moving violation in past three years; and no at-fault accident involving bodily injury or death in past three years; and no felony or misdemeanor conviction for a violation of the Vehicle Code.")

Additionally, family income cannot exceed 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($23,925 for a single person, 32,075 for two persons and 48,375 for a family of four). The value of an insured vehicle must not exceed $20,000. For more information about the program, call (866) 60-AUTO-1 (866) 602-8861.

Finding affordable health insurance

source MSNBC

By Jean Sherman Chatzky

Our recent survey found these financial problems concern women most: living within your means, affording health insurance, getting rid of debt, buying a home, and saving for retirement. We looked through our viewer email and found five women who have these money problems. “Today” financial contributor and Money magazine editor-at-large Jean Chatzky has advice on how to obtain affordable health insurance for the family.

THE LEADING CAUSE of personal bankruptcy is not wasteful spending or reckless investing but unpaid medical bills. That’s surprising, but only until you consider that at any moment some 40 million Americans are without health insurance and another 40 million have experienced a gap in coverage sometime over the past two years.

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

With the slow economy, some employers — particularly small ones — are faced with a choice, they can cut jobs or they can cut benefits. Many, for understandable reasons, opt to cut the latter. If you are laid off, you can often maintain your health coverage for up to 18 months through your former employer’s plan under a law called COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act). But at an average $600 a month, it’s also expensive. The good news is, if you’re in reasonably good health it’s getting easier to find affordable health insurance on your own — particularly online.


FINDING AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE

Start on the web

According to comparisons from eHealthinsurance.com, the online market leader, a healthy family of four (thirty-something parents and school-age kids) can get a major-medical plan — with a $1,000 annual family deductible and co-payments of $30 per doctor’s visit and $10 for generic drugs — for about $400 a month.The price falls to $200 a month with a $5,000 deductible. A healthy 30-year-old single male can pay about $160 a month, or $50 with the higher deductible. You’ll have to go through medical underwriting, answering health questions and opening up your medical records. Depending on what’s there, an insurer may want to charge a higher rate or exclude existing conditions. In such cases, COBRA might be the best deal after all.


Consider short-term coverage

If your employment prospects are good, you may want a bridge for, say, six months. Short-term policies are cheaper because they exclude coverage for existing medical conditions and reimburse a smaller percentage of your costs. Besides eHealthInsurance.com, go to Fortis Insurance (Fortishealth .com), the leader in this part of the market.

Take your web quotes to a pro

An agent can assess your needs, explain complex policy riders and sometimes get you a better deal. (Some insurers aren’t in online databases.) You can search for agents in your area through the National Association of Health Underwriters at nahu.org.

Check out association coverage

Many institutional and professional groups, including alumni associations, offer well-priced coverage to members. But don’t assume that your group has chosen a good company. Before signing up with any insurer, see whether its customers lodge a lot of complaints: go to “Consumer Information Source” at www.naic.org, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners site. Check quality ratings at www.ncqa.org, the National Committee for Quality Assurance site. And before using an insurer based out of state, ask your state’s insurance department whether you’ll be protected if the company tries to raise your premium but not those of other policyholders.

And finally...

In the Wall Street Journal last week, there was a front-page story on health insurance policies that are very cheap ($10 a week) but only cover up to $1,000 of expenses. The story noted how easy it is for these policies to leave you stranded if you have a serious health problem. Instead, you’ll be better off not skimping but rather buying the broadest coverage you can afford. Cut costs, if you must, by raising your deductible but not by curtailing coverage for such things as outpatient hospital services, which can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Some feel very strongly that this country needs a national health plan. 40 million people are without health insurance, and something has to be done.

Some financial experts agree, but in the meantime people are going to have to take care of themselves. There are many sorts of policies out there — short term, long term, Cobra for people who get laid off — hopefully the eHealth site can help people find a policy that works for them.

eHealthInsurance Adds HSA Enrollment

Salt Lake City, Utah-based HealthEquity, a provider of information and health savings accounts (HSA), said today that it has teamed up with online health insurance provider eHealthInsurance to offer health savings accounts (HSAs) online. The two companies are co-branding a website that allows consumers to sign up for health insurance and a health savings account. HSAs are the new tax-advantaged accounts that operate much like a retirement savings plan, but can be used to pay for medical expenses.

Fairer auto insurance

Editorial

WHEN VOTERS PASSED Proposition 103 in 1988, they did so, in part, to change the way auto insurance rates are calculated. The measure required insurance companies to give more weight to a driver's record and experience than to his or her address, gender or marital status when setting rates.
Unfortunately, reform of the auto insurance industry has come slowly. There is still much room for improvement.
California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi agrees and has proposed changes that should have been made long ago.
He wants to make driving records, experience and miles driven the key factors in setting rates. Currently, too much weight is given to a driver's ZIP code.
As a result, drivers with good records end up paying high rates because of where they live, not because of how careful they are.
Often, minorities in large urban areas suffer because rates are highest in their neighborhoods.
That is why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and consumer groups have long sought reforms in the way rates are calculated.
Insurance firms argue that the current system is fairer than it would be under Garamendi's plan. We do not agree.
While it may be true that risk correlates with certain factors such as ZIP code, gender and marital status, it is unfair to assume that everyone in a certain area or group has the same risk of having an accident.
It is fairer to base risk on actual driving experience, rather than general correlations. If someone has been driving accident-free for many years, he or she deserves to have a lower rate than someone who has had several claims, regardless of address or gender.
If it turns out that people living in urban areas have more accidents, then those drivers who make multiple claims will see their rates rise.
It could well be that insurance firms collect as much revenue from premiums in urban areas as they do now, but the burden would be on those who are involved in accidents, not everyone, regardless of their driving record.
The reverse is true in rural areas. If the risk is low, then most drivers are likely to have good records and lower insurance rates.
Just because it may be easier to calculate rates based on ZIP codes and other generalized data rather than examining individual drivers' records, it is no reason to continue the current system. Garamendi's new program deserves a chance.

Bill would require tracking health care - Bangornews.com Staff

From Bangordailynews.com

AUGUSTA - It's no secret that many Mainers work at low-paying jobs and aren't able to afford health insurance even if their employer offers it. But when that employer is a major multinational corporation with record-breaking profits year after year, is it right for overburdened Maine taxpayers to pick up the health care tab for its employees?

A bill before the Legislature would require the state to compile information each month about employed participants in its Medicaid program, called MaineCare. That information would include the type of work performed by the MaineCare member, the kind of business where he or she is employed, the number of hours worked and the hourly wage earned. The information would be presented in an annual report to the Legislature and used to guide health care policy.

LD 1927, sponsored by Senate President Beth Edmunds, D-Freeport, has been casually referred to in Augusta as "the Wal-Mart bill" because it was modeled after recent legislation in Maryland that specifically targets the Arkansas-based megaretailer. Maryland's so-called "Fair Share" bill requires the state's Wal-Mart stores to spend 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or to contribute an equivalent amount to the state's Medicaid program. Wal-Mart is considering filing suit.

Last year, more than 1,000 of Wal-Mart's approximately 6,500 Maine employees were receiving some kind of state or federal assistance - MaineCare, food stamps and-or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - according to information released by the state Department of Health and Human Services and published in the Lewiston Sun Journal last November.

In Maine, Wal-Mart is the second-largest employer, tied with L.L. Bean at about 6,500 employees each. Bath Iron Works is in the No. 3 slot with 5,500 workers, and the Hannaford food stores are in the lead with about 7,500.

According to its Web site, Wal-Mart has 3,800 facilities in the United States and more than 2,400 "units" in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The company had profits of $312.4 billion in the fiscal year that ended Jan. 31, 2005.

According to a study cited at Tuesday's hearing, 57 percent of Wal-Mart's 1.3 million U.S. workers, many of whom are disadvantaged single mothers or minority members, have no health care insurance and depend on public programs or charity care.

Edmunds' original bill would have had the MaineCare program track employees of Wal-Mart and other companies with 50 or more MaineCare beneficiaries to determine how much employees of each company are costing the publicly funded MaineCare program. But in introducing her amended legislation at a public hearing Wednesday, Edmunds shifted the focus off Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers and instead said the state should collect the data without creating a "Hall of Shame" list of employers.

Edmunds said the amended bill would simply provide information about the effectiveness of the current employer-based insurance system and help steer policymakers' decisions about health care reform.

"If we are not yet prepared to enact a universal health plan where everyone shares in the benefits and the costs of health care, then we at least need to know where the employer model may not be appropriate anymore," she said.

Union leaders supported the measure, saying they've been trying for years to organize Wal-Mart workers but have been thwarted repeatedly. James Carson, president of the Teamsters in Maine and New England, said the state should be sensitive to differences between companies that simply make huge profits on the backs of Maine workers and taxpayers and those that try harder to be good employers and corporate citizens.

Dr. Robert Weiss, dean emeritus of the Columbia University School of Public Health and now a resident of Orono, noted that only by decreasing spending on MaineCare and other public health programs can the state decrease property taxes or increase spending on schools, current priorities in Augusta.

Representatives of the Maine Medical Association, the Maine State Employees Association, the Maine Council of Churches, the Maine Fair Trade Campaign and Maine Consumers for Affordable Health Care also testified in support.

Opposition to the measure was relatively muted. No one from Wal-Mart testified. James McGregor of the Maine Merchants Association criticized the bill as a prelude to requiring all employers to provide insurance to their workers, and reminded the committee that employers of all sizes are affected by the spiraling costs of health insurance.

"Business is not in a position to subsidize [public] programs after the government runs out of money," he said.

Peter Gore of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce objected to the effort to categorize employers as "good" or "bad" based on "the presence of someone on MaineCare on your payroll." Most employers in Maine struggle to treat their employees well, he said, both because it's good for business and because they feel a sense of moral obligation.

Hannaford's Steve Culver testified that many companies offer a variety of socially valuable employee programs, citing Hannaford's proactive policy of hiring mentally and physically disabled workers as an example.

Committee members displayed their own agendas as well. Rep. Kevin Glynn, R-South Portland, pressed several of those testifying both for and against the measure to comment on the state's DirigoChoice insurance plan, of which he is an outspoken critic. At the other end of the committee bench, Rep. Richard Burns, D-Berwick, took several opportunities to enlarge on the benefits of a single-payer plan. Senate chair Art Mayo, D-Bath, kept the digressions to a minimum.

After the hearing adjourned, co-chair Rep. Hannah Pingree, D-North Haven, emphasized that the bill as amended would simply gather data without attaching it to any specific employers. Committee changes that might ask employers to disclose employee benefit policies or other information are bound to create problems, she said. "But it's important to understand how this information affects the availability and cost of health care in Maine," she said.

Pingree added that the state should look to its own policies. For example, some health care workers whose wages are set by the MaineCare program also are unable to afford health insurance and must depend on the MaineCare program, she said.

The legislative committee's work session on LD 1927 is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday, March 8, in the Health and Human Services Committee Room of the State Office Building.

Pressure on Wal-Mart might bump health insurance to forefront

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.