logo

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Life's Disappointments

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Life insurance, that is.
Although I've never formally quantified it, life insurance comprises about 40% of my practice. Two recent experiences with this fairly simple product have left me disappointed and angry.
First, in some 25 years "in the biz," I've helped many clients file death claims on loved ones. For the most part, it's a pretty simple process: call the carrier to report the death, confirm mailing information, wait a couple days for the forms to arrive, and on from there.
After my mother died a few weeks ago, it took a while for me to feel up to starting the claims process. A week, in fact. So last Wednesday, I called the three carriers with whom Mom was insured, and asked them to send the paperwork. We confirmed mailing info, and that was that. Two days later, I received the package from Western-Southern Life.
I'm still waiting, a week later, for the forms from General American and TransAmerica.
This is not a complicated process: once the carrier's confirmed the mailing address, they drop the forms in the mail. It doesn't take a week for the envelope to arrive; in fact, I received the W-S one in two days.
Life insurance is a promise to pay, and we trust the carriers to at least get the easy parts right. Neither General American nor TransAmerica seem capable of doing so, and I won't take the chance that they'll disappoint my clients, so I will no longer be selling their products.
At the other end of the life insurance process, I'm beginning to change my mind about how I handle applications. I always have the client fill out the app itself, with guidance from me so that they know which parts to answer and which to skip. One question that has always bothered me, and which I now find completely unacceptable, is the one regarding family history. It's not that the information is irrelevant (it may well be), but it is a fundamentally unfair and flawed underwriting tool.
How so?
If I'm adopted, then I have no idea whether my father died at age 47 of acute liver failure, or remains a robust 97 year old golfer. And if I happen to know that my mother died of leukemia at age 37, there's absolutely no way the underwriter (or claims person) could ever know this. While I will never suggest that a client lie on an application, I think that I will now point out this problem to my clients, and suggest that they answer however they deem appropriate, keeping in mind that, unlike the medical questions which can be checked, the family history is completely unavailable to the insurer.
'Nuff said.

ADDENDUM: Although I've blogged on this subject before, I think it takes on new relevance in light of the recently passed legislation regarding "genetics discrimination." Although that bill seems to focus only on health insurance, it doesn't seem to me to be much of a stretch to apply it to the life side.

So not only is it a fundamentally stupid question, it may well now be illegal.

Life's Disappointments

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Life insurance, that is.
Although I've never formally quantified it, life insurance comprises about 40% of my practice. Two recent experiences with this fairly simple product have left me disappointed and angry.
First, in some 25 years "in the biz," I've helped many clients file death claims on loved ones. For the most part, it's a pretty simple process: call the carrier to report the death, confirm mailing information, wait a couple days for the forms to arrive, and on from there.
After my mother died a few weeks ago, it took a while for me to feel up to starting the claims process. A week, in fact. So last Wednesday, I called the three carriers with whom Mom was insured, and asked them to send the paperwork. We confirmed mailing info, and that was that. Two days later, I received the package from Western-Southern Life.
I'm still waiting, a week later, for the forms from General American and TransAmerica.
This is not a complicated process: once the carrier's confirmed the mailing address, they drop the forms in the mail. It doesn't take a week for the envelope to arrive; in fact, I received the W-S one in two days.
Life insurance is a promise to pay, and we trust the carriers to at least get the easy parts right. Neither General American nor TransAmerica seem capable of doing so, and I won't take the chance that they'll disappoint my clients, so I will no longer be selling their products.
At the other end of the life insurance process, I'm beginning to change my mind about how I handle applications. I always have the client fill out the app itself, with guidance from me so that they know which parts to answer and which to skip. One question that has always bothered me, and which I now find completely unacceptable, is the one regarding family history. It's not that the information is irrelevant (it may well be), but it is a fundamentally unfair and flawed underwriting tool.
How so?
If I'm adopted, then I have no idea whether my father died at age 47 of acute liver failure, or remains a robust 97 year old golfer. And if I happen to know that my mother died of leukemia at age 37, there's absolutely no way the underwriter (or claims person) could ever know this. While I will never suggest that a client lie on an application, I think that I will now point out this problem to my clients, and suggest that they answer however they deem appropriate, keeping in mind that, unlike the medical questions which can be checked, the family history is completely unavailable to the insurer.
'Nuff said.

ADDENDUM: Although I've blogged on this subject before, I think it takes on new relevance in light of the recently passed legislation regarding "genetics discrimination." Although that bill seems to focus only on health insurance, it doesn't seem to me to be much of a stretch to apply it to the life side.

So not only is it a fundamentally stupid question, it may well now be illegal.

Better Choices, Better Results

[Welcome Insurance Forums readers!]

If given a choice between a lobster meal for $30 and one for $3, most folks would naturally ask, what is wrong with the $3 meal?

Or gasoline for $3.50 a gallon vs. gasoline for $0.35 per gallon.

Or . . .

Well, you get the idea.

When faced with choices, the lower priced product, especially if it is dramatically lower, causes most of us to ask . . . "what's the catch".

Apparently not so with health insurance.

Lisa Kelly has leukemia.

She also has a limited benefit plan purchased through AARP.

Lisa was referred by her doctor to M. D. Anderson hospital in Houston for treatment, but when she arrived "the nonprofit hospital refused to accept Mrs. Kelly's limited insurance. It asked for $105,000 in cash before it would admit her."

Limited insurance.

Low premium, limited insurance.

Should be a tip off.

Unlike many without insurance, or limited benefit plans, Mrs. Kelly has assets. She and her husband have real estate holdings and other investments.

They are not destitute. They could have afforded more comprehensive coverage but they opted for a plan with a very low limit.

Typically, hospitals have billed people after they receive care. But now, pointing to their burgeoning bad-debt and charity-care costs, hospitals are asking patients for money before they get treated.

Hospitals say they have turned to the practice because of a spike in patients who don't pay their bills. Uncompensated care cost the hospital industry $31.2 billion in 2006, up 44% from $21.6 billion in 2000, according to the American Hospital Association.


School pictures typically have signs that say, no cash, no flash. But hospitals (and other care givers) have typically billed in arrears.

Those days are over.

It is one thing to stiff the photographer for $100 worth of senior class pictures. Another to stiff a hospital for $100k or so.

Asking patients to pay after they've received treatment is "like asking someone to pay for the car after they've driven off the lot," says John Tietjen, vice president for patient financial services at M.D. Anderson. "The time that the patient is most receptive is before the care is delivered."

Good analogy.

Hospitals are a business.

The article, and many bloggers, have chosen to blame the insurance carriers, or the health care system, for Lisa Kelly's plight. But the fact is, she made a choice, and that choice was to buy a limited benefit plan because "at the time, she hardly ever went to the doctor. "I just thought I needed some kind of insurance policy because you never know what's going to happen," says Mrs. Kelly."

This kind of rationale, assuming that because you have had good health in the past all you need is a "good health policy", is convoluted.

My house has never burned down, so why do I need a policy that covers replacement? Why not just buy one that covers the gutters, paint and roof?

No one would ever do that but they do buy limited benefit plans every day. They are great until you need them then they are almost worthless.

According to the article, the Kelly's have gone through roughly $45,000 of their own money and are still on the hook for $145,000 at this point.

The Kelly's are self employed. Why didn't they purchase a small group plan rather than going through their own money?

Individual carriers would turn her down in a heartbeat, but most states (and TX is one of them) have small group laws. In most cases, carriers are required to issue coverage (including for pre-ex conditions) when the policy is a group plan.

Texas also has a risk pool that is supported in part by taxes. That is another possible option.

For whatever reason, the Kelly's are using their own funds because of poor choices in the past.

Making better choices before she got sick would have left them in better financial shape.

Making better choices after she got sick would also have left them in better financial shape.

Better Choices, Better Results

[Welcome Insurance Forums readers!]

If given a choice between a lobster meal for $30 and one for $3, most folks would naturally ask, what is wrong with the $3 meal?

Or gasoline for $3.50 a gallon vs. gasoline for $0.35 per gallon.

Or . . .

Well, you get the idea.

When faced with choices, the lower priced product, especially if it is dramatically lower, causes most of us to ask . . . "what's the catch".

Apparently not so with health insurance.

Lisa Kelly has leukemia.

She also has a limited benefit plan purchased through AARP.

Lisa was referred by her doctor to M. D. Anderson hospital in Houston for treatment, but when she arrived "the nonprofit hospital refused to accept Mrs. Kelly's limited insurance. It asked for $105,000 in cash before it would admit her."

Limited insurance.

Low premium, limited insurance.

Should be a tip off.

Unlike many without insurance, or limited benefit plans, Mrs. Kelly has assets. She and her husband have real estate holdings and other investments.

They are not destitute. They could have afforded more comprehensive coverage but they opted for a plan with a very low limit.

Typically, hospitals have billed people after they receive care. But now, pointing to their burgeoning bad-debt and charity-care costs, hospitals are asking patients for money before they get treated.

Hospitals say they have turned to the practice because of a spike in patients who don't pay their bills. Uncompensated care cost the hospital industry $31.2 billion in 2006, up 44% from $21.6 billion in 2000, according to the American Hospital Association.


School pictures typically have signs that say, no cash, no flash. But hospitals (and other care givers) have typically billed in arrears.

Those days are over.

It is one thing to stiff the photographer for $100 worth of senior class pictures. Another to stiff a hospital for $100k or so.

Asking patients to pay after they've received treatment is "like asking someone to pay for the car after they've driven off the lot," says John Tietjen, vice president for patient financial services at M.D. Anderson. "The time that the patient is most receptive is before the care is delivered."

Good analogy.

Hospitals are a business.

The article, and many bloggers, have chosen to blame the insurance carriers, or the health care system, for Lisa Kelly's plight. But the fact is, she made a choice, and that choice was to buy a limited benefit plan because "at the time, she hardly ever went to the doctor. "I just thought I needed some kind of insurance policy because you never know what's going to happen," says Mrs. Kelly."

This kind of rationale, assuming that because you have had good health in the past all you need is a "good health policy", is convoluted.

My house has never burned down, so why do I need a policy that covers replacement? Why not just buy one that covers the gutters, paint and roof?

No one would ever do that but they do buy limited benefit plans every day. They are great until you need them then they are almost worthless.

According to the article, the Kelly's have gone through roughly $45,000 of their own money and are still on the hook for $145,000 at this point.

The Kelly's are self employed. Why didn't they purchase a small group plan rather than going through their own money?

Individual carriers would turn her down in a heartbeat, but most states (and TX is one of them) have small group laws. In most cases, carriers are required to issue coverage (including for pre-ex conditions) when the policy is a group plan.

Texas also has a risk pool that is supported in part by taxes. That is another possible option.

For whatever reason, the Kelly's are using their own funds because of poor choices in the past.

Making better choices before she got sick would have left them in better financial shape.

Making better choices after she got sick would also have left them in better financial shape.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Here We Go Again

For what it's worth, we really don't have anything against the legislators in Massachusetts. But they are such EASY targets.

Just look at how many times Massachusetts has made the "news" at InsureBlog. Start here, then look at the search results.

Now they are at it again.

This time the topic is sick pay.

When you're sick, you're sick.

But too often for Massachusetts workers on limited incomes, an unexpected illness is not enough of an excuse to stay home, according to some lawmakers.

That could all change under a new law being pushed on Beacon Hill that would require all employers in the state to grant their employees at least seven paid sick days a year to be used for themselves or for the care of a child, spouse or parent.


Sick days for every one.

But who pays?

The employer.

"We don't think the Legislature should be mandating what types of benefits employers should be providing to their employees," said Richard Lord, president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts. "That decision is best left to the employer and what they can afford and what they need to attract workers."

I agree.

Government mandates are counter-productive.

Here We Go Again

For what it's worth, we really don't have anything against the legislators in Massachusetts. But they are such EASY targets.

Just look at how many times Massachusetts has made the "news" at InsureBlog. Start here, then look at the search results.

Now they are at it again.

This time the topic is sick pay.

When you're sick, you're sick.

But too often for Massachusetts workers on limited incomes, an unexpected illness is not enough of an excuse to stay home, according to some lawmakers.

That could all change under a new law being pushed on Beacon Hill that would require all employers in the state to grant their employees at least seven paid sick days a year to be used for themselves or for the care of a child, spouse or parent.


Sick days for every one.

But who pays?

The employer.

"We don't think the Legislature should be mandating what types of benefits employers should be providing to their employees," said Richard Lord, president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts. "That decision is best left to the employer and what they can afford and what they need to attract workers."

I agree.

Government mandates are counter-productive.

Viva MedTourism!

We've covered the subject of medical tourism pretty heavily over the years; folks from the US take advantage of it, of course, but so do folks from countries with "universal care," believe it or not.
One downside has been the cost: although many procedures are less expensive overseas (even factoring in travel and lodging costs), many folks aren't really able to pre-figure the total expense, or know how to coordinate all the many facets. And insurance companies haven't exactly been lining up to help their insured with these arrangements.
That may be changing:
"Members now have the ability to receive high-quality medical care overseas at a fraction of the U.S. cost! If you need a hip replacement, knee replacement, arterial bypass or other procedure, Companion Global Healthcare will assist you."
[ed: There's no link to the quote because it's from an email I received from the carrier, not copied from a website]
Folks who are insured with Companion Life will now have access to coordinated care, including surgical services, travel arrangements, transfer services from airports to hospital, even passports and visas, as well as scheduling of the care itself. While this certainly isn't an insured expense, it marks the first time I've seen such an effort by a US insurer. If there's a downside to the plan, it's that the carrier offers only limited benefit (not major medical) plans.
Still, it's a start.

Viva MedTourism!

We've covered the subject of medical tourism pretty heavily over the years; folks from the US take advantage of it, of course, but so do folks from countries with "universal care," believe it or not.
One downside has been the cost: although many procedures are less expensive overseas (even factoring in travel and lodging costs), many folks aren't really able to pre-figure the total expense, or know how to coordinate all the many facets. And insurance companies haven't exactly been lining up to help their insured with these arrangements.
That may be changing:
"Members now have the ability to receive high-quality medical care overseas at a fraction of the U.S. cost! If you need a hip replacement, knee replacement, arterial bypass or other procedure, Companion Global Healthcare will assist you."
[ed: There's no link to the quote because it's from an email I received from the carrier, not copied from a website]
Folks who are insured with Companion Life will now have access to coordinated care, including surgical services, travel arrangements, transfer services from airports to hospital, even passports and visas, as well as scheduling of the care itself. While this certainly isn't an insured expense, it marks the first time I've seen such an effort by a US insurer. If there's a downside to the plan, it's that the carrier offers only limited benefit (not major medical) plans.
Still, it's a start.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Tricare.

The taxpayer funded, government program for military personnel, their dependents and retirees.

Seems $100,000,000 of our money is missing.

The Associated Press has caught up with a "little-noticed investigation" of the U.S. military's health insurance program in the Philippines, where some veterans have teamed up with doctors, hospitals and clinics to swindle more than $100 million through phony claims.

Little noticed investigation.

Curious wording. Who failed to notice $100M in missing money?

"There just seemed to be so many possibilities for abuse of the system, and there were so few controls in terms of monitoring," said former U.S. Attorney Peg Lautenschlager, who oversaw prosecutions in the late 1990s.

So many possibilities for abuse.

So few controls.

This is comforting.

A Pentagon spokesman for Tricare told AP the fraud has been hard to prove because of language barriers, a lack of cooperation from providers and limited law enforcement resources. He said that controls have been added and that Tricare is working to stop fraud.

Lack of cooperation. I am appalled.

Working to stop the fraud. In other words, it still exists.

Well that is certainly comforting.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Tricare.

The taxpayer funded, government program for military personnel, their dependents and retirees.

Seems $100,000,000 of our money is missing.

The Associated Press has caught up with a "little-noticed investigation" of the U.S. military's health insurance program in the Philippines, where some veterans have teamed up with doctors, hospitals and clinics to swindle more than $100 million through phony claims.

Little noticed investigation.

Curious wording. Who failed to notice $100M in missing money?

"There just seemed to be so many possibilities for abuse of the system, and there were so few controls in terms of monitoring," said former U.S. Attorney Peg Lautenschlager, who oversaw prosecutions in the late 1990s.

So many possibilities for abuse.

So few controls.

This is comforting.

A Pentagon spokesman for Tricare told AP the fraud has been hard to prove because of language barriers, a lack of cooperation from providers and limited law enforcement resources. He said that controls have been added and that Tricare is working to stop fraud.

Lack of cooperation. I am appalled.

Working to stop the fraud. In other words, it still exists.

Well that is certainly comforting.

Budgets vs. Healthcare

From the Daily Telegraph:

Operations are being cancelled because of dirty or broken instruments sent back by private companies employed to clean them, the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) said yesterday.

Hospitals used to sterilise their operating instruments on site but are being encouraged by the Department of Health to put the job out to private companies.

A survey of surgeons found that equipment was often unfit for use, damaged, or late - meaning that operations were cancelled at the last minute, often when patients were already anaesthetised.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using outside contractors, but there's always the assumption that the job will be done correctly. From cleaning the hospitals to sterilizing their instruments, it's bizarre how many times the UK health system messes up. Is there a cultural lack of personal responsibility?  It's like the Chinese manufacturers that put antifreeze in toothpaste to save a buck.  It's just stupid.

Can you imagine the lawsuits that would result if this happened here?


Budgets vs. Healthcare

From the Daily Telegraph:

Operations are being cancelled because of dirty or broken instruments sent back by private companies employed to clean them, the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) said yesterday.

Hospitals used to sterilise their operating instruments on site but are being encouraged by the Department of Health to put the job out to private companies.

A survey of surgeons found that equipment was often unfit for use, damaged, or late - meaning that operations were cancelled at the last minute, often when patients were already anaesthetised.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using outside contractors, but there's always the assumption that the job will be done correctly. From cleaning the hospitals to sterilizing their instruments, it's bizarre how many times the UK health system messes up. Is there a cultural lack of personal responsibility?  It's like the Chinese manufacturers that put antifreeze in toothpaste to save a buck.  It's just stupid.

Can you imagine the lawsuits that would result if this happened here?


A Heavyweight Grand Rounds

Doc Gurley (no "gurley-man," he) presents a WWE-themed 'Rounds, complete with pictures and a dash of humor.
Ever heard of "orphan drugs?" No, not Lil' Annie's lipitor, but specially-designated meds that David Williams, host of the Health Business Blog, believes are being abused by Big Pharma.

A Heavyweight Grand Rounds

Doc Gurley (no "gurley-man," he) presents a WWE-themed 'Rounds, complete with pictures and a dash of humor.
Ever heard of "orphan drugs?" No, not Lil' Annie's lipitor, but specially-designated meds that David Williams, host of the Health Business Blog, believes are being abused by Big Pharma.

Class Warfare

For some reason there seems to be an uproar of contempt for those who have "done well" by societal standards. The MSM and politicians alike want to stress the difference in the "privileged" class vs. the poor.

This is especially true when it comes to health care.

Those who have the ability to pay receive better care and therein lies the rub.

Did I mention this is an emotion that is not limited to the states?

Dr Michael Coglin, chief medical officer of Healthscope, which runs 40 private hospitals, said Ms Roxon must act to end the recruitment trend that is putting private patients in public beds ahead of non-insured patients.

"Private patients who spend two or three thousand dollars a year for private health insurance which gives them the means to access a world-class private hospital system are being promoted at the expense of the majority in the community - the 57% who are uninsured who are totally reliant on the public hospital system for access for much needed treatment," he said


Private patients, who are willing to pay extra for their care, are being tarred and feathered.

Shocking.

Dr Coglin said it was "scandalous" that private patients were "blocking the beds" in public hospitals when 38,000 people were waiting for treatment. "The 57% of Victorians that don't have private health insurance have no choice but to wait in the queue for access to the public hospital beds - it's inequitable," he said.

Inequitable.

And how is this for a defense?

"Private hospitals don't offer the range of procedures that can be undertaken in public hospitals and some privately insured patients have to be treated in the public system," he said.

Class warfare exists even in areas with taxpayer funded medicine.

Class Warfare

For some reason there seems to be an uproar of contempt for those who have "done well" by societal standards. The MSM and politicians alike want to stress the difference in the "privileged" class vs. the poor.

This is especially true when it comes to health care.

Those who have the ability to pay receive better care and therein lies the rub.

Did I mention this is an emotion that is not limited to the states?

Dr Michael Coglin, chief medical officer of Healthscope, which runs 40 private hospitals, said Ms Roxon must act to end the recruitment trend that is putting private patients in public beds ahead of non-insured patients.

"Private patients who spend two or three thousand dollars a year for private health insurance which gives them the means to access a world-class private hospital system are being promoted at the expense of the majority in the community - the 57% who are uninsured who are totally reliant on the public hospital system for access for much needed treatment," he said


Private patients, who are willing to pay extra for their care, are being tarred and feathered.

Shocking.

Dr Coglin said it was "scandalous" that private patients were "blocking the beds" in public hospitals when 38,000 people were waiting for treatment. "The 57% of Victorians that don't have private health insurance have no choice but to wait in the queue for access to the public hospital beds - it's inequitable," he said.

Inequitable.

And how is this for a defense?

"Private hospitals don't offer the range of procedures that can be undertaken in public hospitals and some privately insured patients have to be treated in the public system," he said.

Class warfare exists even in areas with taxpayer funded medicine.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Ferlini Update

Some of our regular readers may recall a piece we did way back in 2006 about the uninsured. This particular piece involved a man (Carlos Ferlini) who was injured in a fall while replacing gutters on a home in California.

We were commenting on (reacting to) a story by 60 Minutes about the "plight" of the uninsured in America.

Since that post appeared, we have been in semi-regular contact with the homeowner. It seems that Mr. Ferlini, through his attorney, have sought retribution through the courts to recover at least a portion of Mr. Ferlini's financial loss.

The case is still being litigated, so we are not at liberty to disclose most of the particulars. But here are some facts that are public knowledge via the media and public court documents.

Mr. Ferlini was self employed as one who installs and repairs gutters.

At the time of his injury, Mr. Ferlini claimed to earn "about $50,000" per year.

Mr. Ferlini did not have workers comp or health insurance at the time of the accident. Nor was he licensed to perform the kind of work he was doing.

Mr. Ferlini incurred almost $250,000 in billed charges after he fell off the roof while attempting repairs.

Mr. Ferlini has sued the homeowner and the homeowners insurance carrier for $450,000. The case is in litigation and has not (yet) gone to trial.

Did I mention that Mr. Ferlini is in the United States as an illegal alien?

What a country.

Ferlini Update

Some of our regular readers may recall a piece we did way back in 2006 about the uninsured. This particular piece involved a man (Carlos Ferlini) who was injured in a fall while replacing gutters on a home in California.

We were commenting on (reacting to) a story by 60 Minutes about the "plight" of the uninsured in America.

Since that post appeared, we have been in semi-regular contact with the homeowner. It seems that Mr. Ferlini, through his attorney, have sought retribution through the courts to recover at least a portion of Mr. Ferlini's financial loss.

The case is still being litigated, so we are not at liberty to disclose most of the particulars. But here are some facts that are public knowledge via the media and public court documents.

Mr. Ferlini was self employed as one who installs and repairs gutters.

At the time of his injury, Mr. Ferlini claimed to earn "about $50,000" per year.

Mr. Ferlini did not have workers comp or health insurance at the time of the accident. Nor was he licensed to perform the kind of work he was doing.

Mr. Ferlini incurred almost $250,000 in billed charges after he fell off the roof while attempting repairs.

Mr. Ferlini has sued the homeowner and the homeowners insurance carrier for $450,000. The case is in litigation and has not (yet) gone to trial.

Did I mention that Mr. Ferlini is in the United States as an illegal alien?

What a country.

Carnival of Personal Finance is up!

Lazy Man and Money blog hosts this week's edition. Following the "Best of...and then the rest" model, LM&M presents a slew of timely and informative finance-related posts.
One of my favorite moneybloggers is The Digerati Life. This week, SVB has an interesting post detailing ways to both earn and save more.

Carnival of Personal Finance is up!

Lazy Man and Money blog hosts this week's edition. Following the "Best of...and then the rest" model, LM&M presents a slew of timely and informative finance-related posts.
One of my favorite moneybloggers is The Digerati Life. This week, SVB has an interesting post detailing ways to both earn and save more.

All the Usual Suspects

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

This is an election year.

Politics is almost always the lead story in national news, and a perennial hot topic is health care and health insurance. The American Cancer Society has decided to jump in the fray and pitch the need for universal health insurance. They do so by airing stories like this about Mark Windsor who has cancer.

"If I probably had gotten some good treatment several years ago I probably would have been cured," Windsor said from his home in Atlanta, Georgia.

The reason he didn't get care sooner -- he couldn't afford it, because he didn't have insurance.


Mark was diagnosed with a rare cancer 25 years ago at age 27. The article does not state if he had insurance at the time, or any time prior to a few years ago when he married a woman who had health insurance and could cover him under her plan.

By the time he picked up health insurance his cancer had progressed to the point of being essentially untreatable.

Mr. Windsor and the American Cancer Society want to blame health insurance carriers for Mr. Windsor's plight. No one wants to look at the options that WERE avaialable, including health insurance through an employer plan.

And what about his wife, Val?

"We're going through a divorce," he said. "Because I have so many hospital bills now, insurance companies have denied to pay them...so I've done what I think is proper, filed for divorce, so that my wife is not stuck with my hospital bills."


Well that's a bit disingenuous.

Carriers can't simply deny claims simply because there are so many of them. But the casual reader would imply that carriers are run by folks who delight in denying legitimate claims.

Karen Ignani, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, says the organization would like to see all Americans covered. "Anytime anyone falls through the cracks, this is a major societal, national problem.

Portraying Mr. Windsor as a victim is an insult. There are always options including taxpayer funded plans (like Medicaid), employer group health plans and, in many states, risk pools. At one point in the article Mr. Windsor states he earned too much ($30,000) to qualify for Medicaid. As a self employed individual, Mr. Windsor controls how much (or how little) he earns each year, but it is much easier to blame the carriers and the "system" for his plight.

In other words, round up all the usual suspects and throw personal responsibility out the window.

All the Usual Suspects

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

This is an election year.

Politics is almost always the lead story in national news, and a perennial hot topic is health care and health insurance. The American Cancer Society has decided to jump in the fray and pitch the need for universal health insurance. They do so by airing stories like this about Mark Windsor who has cancer.

"If I probably had gotten some good treatment several years ago I probably would have been cured," Windsor said from his home in Atlanta, Georgia.

The reason he didn't get care sooner -- he couldn't afford it, because he didn't have insurance.


Mark was diagnosed with a rare cancer 25 years ago at age 27. The article does not state if he had insurance at the time, or any time prior to a few years ago when he married a woman who had health insurance and could cover him under her plan.

By the time he picked up health insurance his cancer had progressed to the point of being essentially untreatable.

Mr. Windsor and the American Cancer Society want to blame health insurance carriers for Mr. Windsor's plight. No one wants to look at the options that WERE avaialable, including health insurance through an employer plan.

And what about his wife, Val?

"We're going through a divorce," he said. "Because I have so many hospital bills now, insurance companies have denied to pay them...so I've done what I think is proper, filed for divorce, so that my wife is not stuck with my hospital bills."


Well that's a bit disingenuous.

Carriers can't simply deny claims simply because there are so many of them. But the casual reader would imply that carriers are run by folks who delight in denying legitimate claims.

Karen Ignani, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, says the organization would like to see all Americans covered. "Anytime anyone falls through the cracks, this is a major societal, national problem.

Portraying Mr. Windsor as a victim is an insult. There are always options including taxpayer funded plans (like Medicaid), employer group health plans and, in many states, risk pools. At one point in the article Mr. Windsor states he earned too much ($30,000) to qualify for Medicaid. As a self employed individual, Mr. Windsor controls how much (or how little) he earns each year, but it is much easier to blame the carriers and the "system" for his plight.

In other words, round up all the usual suspects and throw personal responsibility out the window.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

A word about DEDUCTIBLES...

Simply stated: A deductible is the amount that you pay toward a loss or claim before the insurance company begins to pay. The higher your deductible, the lower your premium.
  • The more you are willing to participate in your loss, the greater the savings on your premium.
The insurance company will offer your a lower premium if you take a higher deductible because your LOSS FREQUENCY and your LOSS SEVERITY will be lower. Consider if you have a $2000 deductible instead of a $500 deductible:
  1. You'll make fewer claims because you won't be making claims for $600, $900 or $1995 losses. You'll simply pay those yourself. (FREQUENCY)
  2. When you do submit a claim the insurance company will be paying $1500 LESS than if you had the $500 deductible. (SEVERITY)

There is no "correct" deductible to choose. It depends on what I like to call your personal LOSS THRESHOLD. So before we get too far ahead, lets take a moment to diagnose your "loss threshold."

Lets say you go out and buy a $3 picture to hang in your bathroom. Are you going to insure it? Of course not! Now you go out and buy a famous $252,000 masterpiece painting. Are you going to insure it? Unless you are a multi-millionaire, you certainly will. Somewhere in between the $3 print and the $252,000 masterpiece is your loss threshold. Your loss threshold is the amount of money you can stand to lose without doing any great harm to your daily lifestyle or your peace-of-mind. In the above example, different people will have different thresholds. There is no right or wrong answer here!

ANOTHER SIMPLE CALCULATION....

OK. Let's say you're ok with a loss threshold of $1000 or less. Now you can choose between a $1000 deductible or a $500 deductible. Here's all you have to do.

  1. Find the premium difference between the two.
  2. Let's say you save $80 a year in premium to take the $1000 deductible.
  3. Now look at the DIFFERENCE between the 2 deductibles which is $500. It would take you over 6 years ($80/yr x 6 years = $480 ) to save the DIFFERENCE between the deductibles.
  4. Now you simply ask yourself, "Do I think I'll have more than 1 claim in the next 6 years?"
  5. If the answer is yes, you should probably take the lower ($500) deductible.
  6. If the answer is no, then the higher deductible ($1000) probably makes more sense.

If you're still confused by this, just give me a call and I'll walk you through it....

dv

It's a Good Life !






Dennis Volz Insurance Agency
10783 Jamacha Bl, Suite 1, Spring Valley, CA 91978
OFFICE: (619) 670-1000 - FAX: (619) 670-1121

eMail:Dennis@DennisVolzInsurance.com

Websites: Company Site: DennisVolzInsurance.com

Client Convenience Site: 6701000.com

My 'Other Blogs'
Working by Referral
Musings from California

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Consoles vs Components: A Healthcare Perspective

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Back in the day, home stereos came in huge wooden cabinets, as much furniture as sound system. Their appeal was obvious: rich sound without dangling wires, all neatly packaged together. The downside wasn't so obvious until the tuner knob or turntable arm broke: the whole thing went to the shop for repairs, leaving only the sounds of silence.
Then came components: speakers, turntables, tuners and tape decks all separate, easily upgradeable and if the speaker blew, it was a simple matter to swap in a new one.
If that sounds weird coming to you from a medblogger, consider this:
Several months ago, when I had my little lesson in the effects of ice and gravity, the provider I chose was such a facility: a dozen or so state-of-the-art exam cubicles, but no hospital rooms. For a relatively minor injury such as mine, this was ideal: there was little chance I'd need overnight accomodations.
We've talked before about minute-clinics and surgi-centers, and how many urban hospitals are cutting back on services, and I think I see a trend: much as stereo cabinets gave way to hi-fi components, it seems to me that previously hospital-based care is moving more and more to out-patient facilities unconnected to the sprawling complexes we've come to know as "hospitals."
Is this a "good thing?"
Only time will tell, of course, but I think the trend is encouraging. Specialty facilities can offer more expert care more quickly, and (perhaps) more cost-efficiently than traditional hospitals. They lack, of course, extended stay options; when my mother was recently hospitalized, she was taken first to the same facility as I had been, but had to be transported later that day to a "regular" hospital. Still, we couldn't have known that at the time, and it seemed a reasonable choice.
Something to keep an eye on.

Consoles vs Components: A Healthcare Perspective

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Back in the day, home stereos came in huge wooden cabinets, as much furniture as sound system. Their appeal was obvious: rich sound without dangling wires, all neatly packaged together. The downside wasn't so obvious until the tuner knob or turntable arm broke: the whole thing went to the shop for repairs, leaving only the sounds of silence.
Then came components: speakers, turntables, tuners and tape decks all separate, easily upgradeable and if the speaker blew, it was a simple matter to swap in a new one.
If that sounds weird coming to you from a medblogger, consider this:
Several months ago, when I had my little lesson in the effects of ice and gravity, the provider I chose was such a facility: a dozen or so state-of-the-art exam cubicles, but no hospital rooms. For a relatively minor injury such as mine, this was ideal: there was little chance I'd need overnight accomodations.
We've talked before about minute-clinics and surgi-centers, and how many urban hospitals are cutting back on services, and I think I see a trend: much as stereo cabinets gave way to hi-fi components, it seems to me that previously hospital-based care is moving more and more to out-patient facilities unconnected to the sprawling complexes we've come to know as "hospitals."
Is this a "good thing?"
Only time will tell, of course, but I think the trend is encouraging. Specialty facilities can offer more expert care more quickly, and (perhaps) more cost-efficiently than traditional hospitals. They lack, of course, extended stay options; when my mother was recently hospitalized, she was taken first to the same facility as I had been, but had to be transported later that day to a "regular" hospital. Still, we couldn't have known that at the time, and it seemed a reasonable choice.
Something to keep an eye on.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Carpet Cleaning Copays

A few nights ago my wife and I were enjoying a DVD movie in the den and having a snack which included a mid priced, but flavorful Merlot. Something happened, I don't recall what, but Rachel spilled her glass of wine on the oriental rug.

Actually, when we bought it years ago it was an oriental rug. I suppose today it would be an Asian-American rug.

The rug is probably 30 years old. We vacuum it on a regular basis and have had it professionally cleaned a few times for a small fortune.

Through almost 30 years, two kids, dogs and even a few escaped gerbil's the rug has survived.

Now I was envisioning our treasure that was ruined by a glass of wine.

Deep red really stands out against a cream colored background with sprinkles of blue, green and a touch of red.

The folks at Stanley Steemer do an outstanding job on carpet but I figured this was beyond them. I will probably have to find an Asian-American rug doctor to fix this. I will pay a king's ransom to have the spot removed.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a copay?

You know. Pay someone of Asian or Middle Eastern descent $20 to fix my rug? How cool is that?

But having such a copay plan would probably be cost prohibitive. I mean, how many times do you spill red wine on a rug while watching Bullitt?

Since I did not have a carpet cleaning copay, I did the next best thing. Thanks to Al Gore, I have the internet.

Seems we don't need a copay, or even someone with a foreign accent to clean the spot. All we needed was some hydrogen peroxide and Dawn dish washing detergent.

Fortunately we had both on hand.

Wonder if health insurance could be as simple?

Carpet Cleaning Copays

A few nights ago my wife and I were enjoying a DVD movie in the den and having a snack which included a mid priced, but flavorful Merlot. Something happened, I don't recall what, but Rachel spilled her glass of wine on the oriental rug.

Actually, when we bought it years ago it was an oriental rug. I suppose today it would be an Asian-American rug.

The rug is probably 30 years old. We vacuum it on a regular basis and have had it professionally cleaned a few times for a small fortune.

Through almost 30 years, two kids, dogs and even a few escaped gerbil's the rug has survived.

Now I was envisioning our treasure that was ruined by a glass of wine.

Deep red really stands out against a cream colored background with sprinkles of blue, green and a touch of red.

The folks at Stanley Steemer do an outstanding job on carpet but I figured this was beyond them. I will probably have to find an Asian-American rug doctor to fix this. I will pay a king's ransom to have the spot removed.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a copay?

You know. Pay someone of Asian or Middle Eastern descent $20 to fix my rug? How cool is that?

But having such a copay plan would probably be cost prohibitive. I mean, how many times do you spill red wine on a rug while watching Bullitt?

Since I did not have a carpet cleaning copay, I did the next best thing. Thanks to Al Gore, I have the internet.

Seems we don't need a copay, or even someone with a foreign accent to clean the spot. All we needed was some hydrogen peroxide and Dawn dish washing detergent.

Fortunately we had both on hand.

Wonder if health insurance could be as simple?

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Tiered Pricing

Health insurance carriers, in an attempt to limit premium increases, are introducing a 4th tier to prescription drug benefits. These are usually reserved for the most expensive drugs, typically used to treat cancer patients.

Almost always the 4th tier is for infusion therapy which can easily run $4,000 per treatment.

Some 4th tier copays run $100 while others require coinsurance. With coinsurance the insured will typically pay 20 - 25% of the cost of the medication up to a maximum of $2500 per year.

Forbes is crying foul.

Tier 4 coverage is exposing more US citizens with health insurance to illness-related financial risk. For some people, this may be tempered by out-of-pocket maximum co-payment limits, but according to the EHBS, only 8% of covered workers have an out-of-pocket spending maximum on prescription drugs.

This point is valid.

Perhaps that is because the majority of insureds have Rx copay plans that never set a cap on the number of copays you can have in a year.

Take 15 meds per month?

You have 15 copays.

Of course the majority of my clients have long abandoned the copay for the overall cap on OOP (out of pocket) that comes with the HDHP/HSA.

I would estimate that perhaps 5 - 10% of my client base still cling to copay plans while the rest have become enlightened to the advantages of the "bare bones" approach to health insurance.

Tiered Pricing

Health insurance carriers, in an attempt to limit premium increases, are introducing a 4th tier to prescription drug benefits. These are usually reserved for the most expensive drugs, typically used to treat cancer patients.

Almost always the 4th tier is for infusion therapy which can easily run $4,000 per treatment.

Some 4th tier copays run $100 while others require coinsurance. With coinsurance the insured will typically pay 20 - 25% of the cost of the medication up to a maximum of $2500 per year.

Forbes is crying foul.

Tier 4 coverage is exposing more US citizens with health insurance to illness-related financial risk. For some people, this may be tempered by out-of-pocket maximum co-payment limits, but according to the EHBS, only 8% of covered workers have an out-of-pocket spending maximum on prescription drugs.

This point is valid.

Perhaps that is because the majority of insureds have Rx copay plans that never set a cap on the number of copays you can have in a year.

Take 15 meds per month?

You have 15 copays.

Of course the majority of my clients have long abandoned the copay for the overall cap on OOP (out of pocket) that comes with the HDHP/HSA.

I would estimate that perhaps 5 - 10% of my client base still cling to copay plans while the rest have become enlightened to the advantages of the "bare bones" approach to health insurance.

Stating the (Almost) Obvious

This, from the NCPA:

Regarding mandated individual health insurance coverage, comes this according to the NCPA:

The imposition of an individual mandate with minimum coverage requirements will likely mean that thousands of people who currently have health insurance will find that their policies do not meet the minimum standards because their deductibles are "too high" for the officials defining the minimum standards, or because their policies lack certain benefits.

These decisions will be made by a regulatory body that has no direct knowledge of the incomes, assets, health status or values of the individual policyholders.

This is what is happening under the failing Massachusetts health reform plan.


From an individual's point of view, a mandate is a tax, says the NCPA:

By forcing people to buy a product they may not want at a price they cannot control, the individual mandate functions as a potentially unlimited tax for health insurance.

People who currently get health care but have no insurance will be required to purchase insurance, thus increasing their costs.

People who are allegedly unable to purchase insurance because it is unaffordable will have to be subsidized to a larger extent than they are at present.

Funding those subsidies will require direct tax increases that will raise costs for all citizens, whether those increases are in the form of taxes on insurance premiums, provider taxes, sales taxes or increases in the income tax.


Well, obvious to me at least.

Apparently not so to those who are whining for individual mandates.

Stating the (Almost) Obvious

This, from the NCPA:

Regarding mandated individual health insurance coverage, comes this according to the NCPA:

The imposition of an individual mandate with minimum coverage requirements will likely mean that thousands of people who currently have health insurance will find that their policies do not meet the minimum standards because their deductibles are "too high" for the officials defining the minimum standards, or because their policies lack certain benefits.

These decisions will be made by a regulatory body that has no direct knowledge of the incomes, assets, health status or values of the individual policyholders.

This is what is happening under the failing Massachusetts health reform plan.


From an individual's point of view, a mandate is a tax, says the NCPA:

By forcing people to buy a product they may not want at a price they cannot control, the individual mandate functions as a potentially unlimited tax for health insurance.

People who currently get health care but have no insurance will be required to purchase insurance, thus increasing their costs.

People who are allegedly unable to purchase insurance because it is unaffordable will have to be subsidized to a larger extent than they are at present.

Funding those subsidies will require direct tax increases that will raise costs for all citizens, whether those increases are in the form of taxes on insurance premiums, provider taxes, sales taxes or increases in the income tax.


Well, obvious to me at least.

Apparently not so to those who are whining for individual mandates.

Genetic Testing Update

Late last summer, we reported on a new genetics discrimination bill in Congress. HR 493 was designed to prohibit health plans from adjusting premiums for a group on the basis of genetic information. Along with "Dr No" (Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn), we dismissed this bill as both redundant and unhelpful.
Alas, word's out that the Senate is likely to pass the bill this afternoon, and it's anticipated that President Bush will sign off on it, as well.
We'll have more on this as the full effects become apparent.

Genetic Testing Update

Late last summer, we reported on a new genetics discrimination bill in Congress. HR 493 was designed to prohibit health plans from adjusting premiums for a group on the basis of genetic information. Along with "Dr No" (Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn), we dismissed this bill as both redundant and unhelpful.
Alas, word's out that the Senate is likely to pass the bill this afternoon, and it's anticipated that President Bush will sign off on it, as well.
We'll have more on this as the full effects become apparent.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

A Belated Thank You

I want to thank everyone who left comments at Bob's posts, wishing my family well and offering good thoughts and then condolences. They all meant a lot to me; I was pretty much offline for almost two weeks, and I didn't want anyone to think that these were being ignored. Rather, they were much appreciated.

A Belated Thank You

I want to thank everyone who left comments at Bob's posts, wishing my family well and offering good thoughts and then condolences. They all meant a lot to me; I was pretty much offline for almost two weeks, and I didn't want anyone to think that these were being ignored. Rather, they were much appreciated.

Cavalcade of Risk #50 is up!

Julie Ferguson hosts this week's Cav at Workers' Comp Insider. It's an oustanding edition, and all the more impressive because I was unavailable to lend even a small hand. Thank you, Julie, for a great Cav and all the hard work you put into it.

Cavalcade of Risk #50 is up!

Julie Ferguson hosts this week's Cav at Workers' Comp Insider. It's an oustanding edition, and all the more impressive because I was unavailable to lend even a small hand. Thank you, Julie, for a great Cav and all the hard work you put into it.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Finally: Transparency = Cash

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]
Long-time IB readers know that I have a keen interest in (obsession with?) transparency in health care. That is, I think that pricing and outcomes should more closely follow the McDonald's model than the airlines'. Except for emergency situations, where speed is perhaps the most important criteria, consumers should be able to compare the costs and likely results of procedures and treatments before having to make a decision.
It never occurred to me that one could also make a buck off of this:
I have mixed feeling about this: on the one hand, it seems to me a good thing that they're taking this effort so seriously. On the other, wouldn't handing out $100 bills affect their own pricing, forcing them to increase costs?
There's no doubting their commitment to transparency itself, though: they even have a page which lists their charges for a variety of procedures, as well as how those charges stack up against the competition.
Aside from price, another aspect of transparency is a sharing of outcomes and satisfaction levels. In this area, too, Alliance Community seems to have fully embraced the concept: on still another page, they provide a "report card" on their level of care.
And as if that weren't enough, the hospital's CEO, Stan Jonas, runs a blog with insights and information. He even has a comments section, which provides a level of executive transparency, as well.
Kudos!

Finally: Transparency = Cash

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]
Long-time IB readers know that I have a keen interest in (obsession with?) transparency in health care. That is, I think that pricing and outcomes should more closely follow the McDonald's model than the airlines'. Except for emergency situations, where speed is perhaps the most important criteria, consumers should be able to compare the costs and likely results of procedures and treatments before having to make a decision.
It never occurred to me that one could also make a buck off of this:
I have mixed feeling about this: on the one hand, it seems to me a good thing that they're taking this effort so seriously. On the other, wouldn't handing out $100 bills affect their own pricing, forcing them to increase costs?
There's no doubting their commitment to transparency itself, though: they even have a page which lists their charges for a variety of procedures, as well as how those charges stack up against the competition.
Aside from price, another aspect of transparency is a sharing of outcomes and satisfaction levels. In this area, too, Alliance Community seems to have fully embraced the concept: on still another page, they provide a "report card" on their level of care.
And as if that weren't enough, the hospital's CEO, Stan Jonas, runs a blog with insights and information. He even has a comments section, which provides a level of executive transparency, as well.
Kudos!

Sunday, April 20, 2008

D.C. Folly

Several states either have, or want to have, universal health insurance coverage. Now it seems D.C. wants to get in the act.

Bad move.

Residents who already have health coverage and are completely satisfied with it -- but who do not have the kinds of coverage that the legislation stipulates -- would have to change their plans when they come up for renewal. Catania's bill is silent on what that means, but if Massachusetts is any indication, it will end up costing people money.

Apparently the politicians in D.C. aren't any brighter than the ones in Massachusetts.

Before Massachusetts enacted its mandate, it had a little more than 600,000 uninsured residents. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance, but nearly all of them receive subsidized coverage. Another 70,000 have been signed up for Medicaid. But fewer than 30,000 unsubsidized residents have signed up as a result of the mandate. Despite the mandate, as many as 300,000 Massachusetts residents remain uninsured.

It gets worse (but then you knew it would).

And while failing to achieve universal coverage, the Massachusetts plan cost taxpayers a great deal. It is now expected to exceed its budget by $150 million to $400 million over the next year, and $2 billion to $4 billion more than was budgeted over the coming decade.

$2+ billion MORE than budgeted. But hey, it's government money, right?

Insurance should be inexpensive for the young and healthy, but the policies Catania recommends, such as guaranteed issue and community rating, make it expensive. The result, in states with such policies -- such as New York and New Jersey, as well as Massachusetts -- has been disastrous, leading young and healthy people to flee the insurance market in droves

Don't politicians do any research before shooting their mouth off?

Apparently not . . .

D.C. Folly

Several states either have, or want to have, universal health insurance coverage. Now it seems D.C. wants to get in the act.

Bad move.

Residents who already have health coverage and are completely satisfied with it -- but who do not have the kinds of coverage that the legislation stipulates -- would have to change their plans when they come up for renewal. Catania's bill is silent on what that means, but if Massachusetts is any indication, it will end up costing people money.

Apparently the politicians in D.C. aren't any brighter than the ones in Massachusetts.

Before Massachusetts enacted its mandate, it had a little more than 600,000 uninsured residents. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance, but nearly all of them receive subsidized coverage. Another 70,000 have been signed up for Medicaid. But fewer than 30,000 unsubsidized residents have signed up as a result of the mandate. Despite the mandate, as many as 300,000 Massachusetts residents remain uninsured.

It gets worse (but then you knew it would).

And while failing to achieve universal coverage, the Massachusetts plan cost taxpayers a great deal. It is now expected to exceed its budget by $150 million to $400 million over the next year, and $2 billion to $4 billion more than was budgeted over the coming decade.

$2+ billion MORE than budgeted. But hey, it's government money, right?

Insurance should be inexpensive for the young and healthy, but the policies Catania recommends, such as guaranteed issue and community rating, make it expensive. The result, in states with such policies -- such as New York and New Jersey, as well as Massachusetts -- has been disastrous, leading young and healthy people to flee the insurance market in droves

Don't politicians do any research before shooting their mouth off?

Apparently not . . .

Regarding Angels

I've never given a great deal of thought to angels. It's not a religious thing; it's just that the subject wasn't really on my radar.

Until recently.

These past few weeks have been the most difficult of my life. As one can imagine, blogging (while an important and rewarding part of my life) has not been a priority to me the past several weeks. So I was touched and honored to read, when I did manage to get some "online time," Bob's updates and final tribute. He is indeed a friend, and a mensch.


Oh, that's right, angels; I have recognized quite a few over the past few weeks. Some are unlikely (gruff bearded ones here in Dayton, krusty bearded ones further south). Others were more obvious: the incredibly sensitive and compassionate folks at Hospice of Dayton, about whom I can never say enough good things. Some were physicians: my mother's long-time internist, who loved my mom almost as much as we did; the doctors and nurses at Kettering Medical Center, with whom I shared a rocky start, but grew to trust and appreciate.

Some I've know all my life: friends of my parents for over 50 years. When Uncle Milt and Aunt Honeylou enter the room, it's as if the sun has literally just burst forth. I don't think I've ever known anyone with such a love for life.

My mother's beloved sister, who begged her own mother for a baby sister (and finally got her way), is another one. Even when Mom was in Hospice (maybe especially then), she called every day, asking me to hold the phone to mom's ear so she could tell her baby sister how much she was loved.

My second father is an angel, too: although he's not in perfect health, he would not leave her side in those final days and hours. Sharing her final moments with him was a sacred thing.

My wife is, perhaps, the most likely angel. I always used to tease her that she was Mom's favorite, and there was more than a hint of truth in that. Even though she, too, was hurting and grieving, she was my rock and my anchor, and made absolutely sure that Mom was comfortable and knew that she was surrounded with love.

I suspect some folks are wondering why I'm sharing all of this in such a public forum. It is, after all, personal and painful and seems to have nothing to do with the issues we generally address here. But I was touched by some virtual angels, too: emails of love and support, the comments many have left in Bob's recent posts, all show just how many angels there are among us, even if we can't see them. I am so deeply grateful for all the love, sympathy and support from my "cyber family."

Just knowing that there are so many angels in my life is a perfect blessing.

Chag Pesach Sameach!

Regarding Angels

I've never given a great deal of thought to angels. It's not a religious thing; it's just that the subject wasn't really on my radar.

Until recently.

These past few weeks have been the most difficult of my life. As one can imagine, blogging (while an important and rewarding part of my life) has not been a priority to me the past several weeks. So I was touched and honored to read, when I did manage to get some "online time," Bob's updates and final tribute. He is indeed a friend, and a mensch.


Oh, that's right, angels; I have recognized quite a few over the past few weeks. Some are unlikely (gruff bearded ones here in Dayton, krusty bearded ones further south). Others were more obvious: the incredibly sensitive and compassionate folks at Hospice of Dayton, about whom I can never say enough good things. Some were physicians: my mother's long-time internist, who loved my mom almost as much as we did; the doctors and nurses at Kettering Medical Center, with whom I shared a rocky start, but grew to trust and appreciate.

Some I've know all my life: friends of my parents for over 50 years. When Uncle Milt and Aunt Honeylou enter the room, it's as if the sun has literally just burst forth. I don't think I've ever known anyone with such a love for life.

My mother's beloved sister, who begged her own mother for a baby sister (and finally got her way), is another one. Even when Mom was in Hospice (maybe especially then), she called every day, asking me to hold the phone to mom's ear so she could tell her baby sister how much she was loved.

My second father is an angel, too: although he's not in perfect health, he would not leave her side in those final days and hours. Sharing her final moments with him was a sacred thing.

My wife is, perhaps, the most likely angel. I always used to tease her that she was Mom's favorite, and there was more than a hint of truth in that. Even though she, too, was hurting and grieving, she was my rock and my anchor, and made absolutely sure that Mom was comfortable and knew that she was surrounded with love.

I suspect some folks are wondering why I'm sharing all of this in such a public forum. It is, after all, personal and painful and seems to have nothing to do with the issues we generally address here. But I was touched by some virtual angels, too: emails of love and support, the comments many have left in Bob's recent posts, all show just how many angels there are among us, even if we can't see them. I am so deeply grateful for all the love, sympathy and support from my "cyber family."

Just knowing that there are so many angels in my life is a perfect blessing.

Chag Pesach Sameach!

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Passover

Tonight begins the celebration of Passover. I am not Jewish, nor would I presume to attempt to fill Hank's shoes in this annual tradition at InsureBlog.

I am aware of the Passover tradition, but from a Christian perspective. A few things I know about Passover include that this is a celebration of the time the Jews escaped from slavery in to freedom.

In a way, Eileen Sylvia Dennis Stern Keller has experienced her own Passover as she transitioned from this world to the next. I trust these words are received in the manner in which they are put forth, but I was reminded of a poem that was recited by Ronald Reagan following the loss of seven astronauts.

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark nor even eagle flew—
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Passover

Tonight begins the celebration of Passover. I am not Jewish, nor would I presume to attempt to fill Hank's shoes in this annual tradition at InsureBlog.

I am aware of the Passover tradition, but from a Christian perspective. A few things I know about Passover include that this is a celebration of the time the Jews escaped from slavery in to freedom.

In a way, Eileen Sylvia Dennis Stern Keller has experienced her own Passover as she transitioned from this world to the next. I trust these words are received in the manner in which they are put forth, but I was reminded of a poem that was recited by Ronald Reagan following the loss of seven astronauts.

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air....
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark nor even eagle flew—
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Post Script

Hank's mom is gone.

Her spirit departed this earth last night. A text message from Hank arrived this AM when I turned on my phone.

The only thing odd is, Hank does not know how to send a text message.

He must have had help.

I do not know his mom. When I read the text message, I cried. I consider Hank a good friend.

Glorified and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

Post Script

Hank's mom is gone.

Her spirit departed this earth last night. A text message from Hank arrived this AM when I turned on my phone.

The only thing odd is, Hank does not know how to send a text message.

He must have had help.

I do not know his mom. When I read the text message, I cried. I consider Hank a good friend.

Glorified and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Update

Out of respect for Hank and his family, InsureBlog will be mostly silent for the next few days. I spoke with Hank this morning and he expressed his appreciation that so many readers of IB have reached out to him at this time.

He deeply appreciates the phone calls and emails and would like to thank all who have made contact and prayed for his family.

If you would like to make a public statement, feel free to do so in the comment section at the end.

While we are passionate about our work here at InsureBlog, those issues pale in comparison to what the Stern family is going through at this time.

Update

Out of respect for Hank and his family, InsureBlog will be mostly silent for the next few days. I spoke with Hank this morning and he expressed his appreciation that so many readers of IB have reached out to him at this time.

He deeply appreciates the phone calls and emails and would like to thank all who have made contact and prayed for his family.

If you would like to make a public statement, feel free to do so in the comment section at the end.

While we are passionate about our work here at InsureBlog, those issues pale in comparison to what the Stern family is going through at this time.

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More