Would You Buy a Car From These Folks?

Want to help children have access to health care?

Start smoking.

If you already smoke, pick up the pace.

Congress needs your help to fund the SCHIP program that provides government run health insurance for poor families who earn up to $44,000 per year.

While a tobacco tax is a politically popular funding source, it has several significant shortcomings:

A tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others.

With the number of smokers already declining, a tobacco tax would further reduce the number of smokers, thereby eroding the funding source.

To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.

The tax will be paid mostly by the folks it is intended to help . . . "low income" and teens.

This brainchild comes from the same folks who find it prudent to stimulate the economy by going in to debt and funding programs for tattoo removal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each adult smoker costs approximately $3,702 annually in medical costs and lost productivity. If Congress is serious, the tens of millions of new smokers would be needed to sustain SCHIP funding. But assuming that a new cohort of smokers would somehow materialize, the privately insured, as well as the taxpayers, would also carry a correspondingly heavier burden, as most of the additional costs would be shifted to them through higher insurance premiums.

Government is taking over banks, insurance companies and auto makers. Now they want more people to smoke so they can fund health care.

Somehow I miss the logic here.

This isn't rocket surgery.

BTW, the tobacco tax increases by $0.61 per pack on April 1. If you want to protest, stock up today.

Read More

InsureBlog on the Road

InsureBlog posts are often found in the MOST interesting places. Here are two this week - -

1. Carnival of Personal Finance, hosted by Wide Open Wallet, features a classic post from InsureBlog’s own Bob Vineyard. How would feel about a $1 surcharge to your bill to help your waiter buy health insurance?

Find Bob by scrolling down to Budgeting and Saving - and while you're there, read the whole thing.

2. Grand Rounds is hosted by Running a Hospital - this one is grand and it’s certainly round – as in fully-packed. The theme: transparency in the delivery of clinical care. It is a looong and thought-provoking Grand Rounds and once again InsureBlog is a contributor:

InsureBlog's Henry Stern tells the true story of the Italian doc whose dedication to his patient overrode his own immediate health crisis.

Scroll down to Hank’s entry and, as above, enjoy your read along the way.

Read More

'Open-Air' Gyms Investment from Scottish Government

The Scottish Government is to invest £300k in developing specialised outdoor 'Green Gyms'. This is an effort to encourage exercise and improve local environments in the process. In the scheme which will be run by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) using Scottish funding, over fifty projects are going to be developed over the next three years. Volunteers are going to get the chance to exercise in the open air by participating in organised gardening, tree planting and vegetable growing. There will also be instructors on-hand to provide advice on warming-up, using the various gardening implements correctly and cooling down after a period of activity.

Public Health and Sport Minister Shona Robison told the Scotland on Sunday:

"It only takes 30 minutes a day of physical activity, at least five days a week, to gain enormous health benefits and help prevent many serious diseases like heart disease, cancer and stroke.

"This weekend the clocks go forward and with the days getting brighter it's a great time to make the most of the outdoors,"

"Green Gyms are free for everyone to use and, for people who won't set foot in a regular gym, they offer a way to improve your fitness while meeting new people, learning something new and benefiting your local area."

We have to applaud the Scottish Government for again attempting to tackle the health problems of the nation with a pioneering initiative - hopefully the scheme will be a success. The benefits to the enviroments from more allotment space could be invaluable. However, with the weather in Scotland being as it is - we wonder how many will be tempted into the great outdoors on one of the many wet and windy days that Scotland delivers (even during the summer months) - better look out the waterproofs!

Read More

Keeping, Dropping or Changing Your Comprehensive or Collision Coverage

Managing the cost of your insurance car insurance northern ireland, for example) can be as simple as answering a few simple questions. Here's a short discussion that will walk you through the process of deciding to keep, drop or to change (different deductible) your comprehensive and/or collision coverages in your car insurance policy. First we need to do a very short 'inventory.'
TAKING YOUR FINANCIAL PICTURE -

Insurance is simply the management of risk. Owning and driving an automobile is a risk. You risk injury, loss of your vehicle, and potential liability for damage to others. The purchase of insurance is merely an agreement with the company to transfer some of your risk to them. You are saying, "I choose not to assume all of this risk myself. In exchange for my premium dollars, the insurance company will suffer some of the financial loss instead of me." With this thought in mind, you must decide how much risk to transfer and in doing so, decide how much risk you are willing to keep yourself in the from of deductibles and unpurchased coverages.
Before we can get to ways to save money on your premium, you need to take a short inventory of your financial picture. Before you get to deciding whether to take a $100 or a $500 deductible on your collision coverage you first need to decide that you can reasonably handle a $500 loss. So before we jump into any tricks of the trade, 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!
In addition to settling on your personal loss threshold, it is important to consider your previous history of insurance losses. If you have had several losses in the last 10 years, you may be wise to lean more heavily on your insurance coverage. If, on the other hand, you go almost forever between losses, you will save premium dollars by assuming more of the risk yourself in the form of higher deductibles or dropped coverages. Now, if assuming this extra risk is going to give you some sleepless nights and make you a nervous wreck every time you get into your car, then don't do it! Part of what you buy in the purchase of insurance is peace of mind.
What matters most is where you are comfortable. Take a moment to apply a value to your "Loss Threshold." Try thinking in terms of $50, $100, $250, $500, and $1000. How much money can you, with peace of mind, place at risk? As you will see below, once you determine your Loss Threshold, you need only to weigh the cost of the coverage versus the potential for loss to you. Insurance can be a reasonably simple commodity to manage.

1. DROP YOUR COLLISION COVERAGE-

So you have been driving "Old Betsy" now ever since Noah was working on his boat. To you, its worth every bit of what you may have paid for it way back when but to another car buyer, its just an old bucket of bolts, rubber, faded upholstery. Unfortunately, the insurance company views your precious 4-wheeled family member with the same cold business approach as a prospective buyer. Its only worth...well, its worth a lot less than you would hope.
There comes a time in the life of almost every car when its value does not warrant the cost of collision coverage any longer. Collision coverage is that portion of your insurance that pays to fix damage to your car suffered by a collision. You will need this coverage for your car when you are in an accident that is your fault or if your car is the victim of a Hit & Run accident. Looking back to your Financial Picture we discussed above, compare the cost of your coverage with the potential for loss.
In discussions with your agent or by examining your renewal bill, identify the annual cost of your collision coverage. By looking in the newspaper or car-trading publications, determine the actual retail value of your car. Be careful to be objective here and remove whatever emotional attachment you may have to your car that might unrealistically increase its perceived value.

Let's say that the real value of your car is $1200 and the annual cost of just your collision coverage with a $100 deductible is $150. Now here are the Test Questions:

1. Can I afford to withstand this loss without any help from the insurance company? (in this case $1200)
2. Would I rather save $XX (in this case $150) every year and risk the loss of the car myself? By not getting this coverage I am saving $XX ($150) per year. I will save enough to make up the loss ($1200) in Y (8) years. (1200 ÷ 150 = 8)
3. Does my driving and claim history lead me to believe that I might go Y (8) years without suffering that sort of loss?

If the answers to these questions are yes, then you might be well on your way to cutting your insurance costs by dropping your collision coverage. These simple Test Questions can be applied to virtually any insurance-buying decision. Take a look at the next example.

2. DROP YOUR COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE -

Comprehensive coverage like collision coverage is designed to protect your car from loss. Much of the same logic that we applied to collision coverage can be used to decide on the fate of your comprehensive coverage. There are, however some important considerations to weigh in your analysis.
Comprehensive coverage covers almost anything that happens to your car except collision. The most commonly submitted claims are broken windshields, stolen hub caps, stolen stereos, vandalism and theft of the entire vehicle. Note here that many of these losses produce the same amount of financial loss regardless of the value of the car. It costs virtually the same to replace a windshield in a 75 Ford as it does in an 85 Ford. Consider also that the cost of comprehensive coverage is much less than collision coverage. The ratio between money saved and dollars put at risk is smaller and therefore you may be less eager to drop this coverage. Ask yourself the Test Questions that we did for collision coverage and make an informed decision.
If your vehicle is financed or leased, always remember to check with your financial institution before changing these coverages. Your loan contract may have certain requirements and deductible limitations that somewhat restrict your options.


3. RAISE YOUR DEDUCTIBLES -

If deleting collision and comprehensive coverage puts you at greater risk than you are willing to assume at this time, you may want to consider increasing your deductibles as a compromise. As you increase your deductibles you decrease your premium. The insurance company is going to give you a break on your premium here for two reasons. First, when you have a loss, the insurance company will pay you less money when you have a higher deductible. Secondly, with a higher deductible, you will have fewer claims that are presented to the insurance company in excess of your deductible.
When you take a higher deductible you are saying that you, for the consideration of a lower premium are willing to assume a greater portion of the loss yourself. You trade the certainty of a lower premium for the uncertainty of more loss to you should a claim occur.
If you have decided in your Financial Picture that you are comfortable with a $500 loss (and the premium savings is enough) and you own a car worth $3000 then you probably do not want to drop your collision coverage completely. But you can increase your $100 collision deductible to $500 and your zero comprehensive deductible to $100. Let's examine the numbers. If you save $30 per year on your comprehensive coverage and $65 per year on your collision deductible you realize a $95 per year savings the first year and every year thereafter. You are only increasing your risk by $100 on the comprehensive coverage and by $400 on the collision coverage. Remember you already had a $100 deductible on collision and increasing it to $500 changes your participation in the loss by $400. Again, ask yourself the same questions.

1. Can I afford to withstand this loss (the bigger deductible) without any help from the insurance company?
2. Would I rather save this money ($95) and risk the larger deductible loss myself? By taking this bigger deductible I am saving $95 per year. I will save enough money to make up the loss in one year for a comprehensive loss and in just over four years for a collision loss.
3. Does my driving and claim history lead me to believe that I might go one or five years without this sort of loss?

If the answers are primarily yes then most likely an increase in deductibles is right for you.


It's a Good Life !






Dennis Volz Insurance Agency
10791 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

This post contains only a general description of coverages and is not your insurance contract. Details of coverage or limits can vary. All coverages are determined by the terms, provisions, exclusions and conditions of your policy along with any endorsements.

Read More

How to Review Your Auto Insurance Renewal Statement

You can save TONS OF MONEY by just taking a few minutes to look over that annoying little renewal statement that has your insurance bill attached to it.

We sure get a lot of paper these days. Seems that in this paper-LESS society, we shouldn't have quite as much paper as we do. True... we can scan it, archive it, or just throw it away. There is one piece of paper that you'll want to pay attention to -- Its your Auto Insurance Renewal Statement. You'll get these once or twice a year depending on how often your auto insurance renews. You'll probably also get one whenever you adjust your coverage or change vehicles.

One of the reasons the insurance company sends these statements out to you is to give you an opportunity to pause and determine if those coverages and limits and deductibles you started with so long ago still apply to you. Things change and so should your insurance policy. Sometimes people keep up with it; sometimes they don't. By not paying attention to these renewal statements, you could be spending needless premium on coverage you no longer need or want, or you could be setting yourself for an uninsured or underinsured loss by having limits that are too low or thinking you have coverage that you really DON'T have.

Here's a few steps to help you quickly and systematically look over that statement in just a few minutes.

1. Quickly review all the basic information: Name, address, vehicle description. OK there?

2. Next take a look at the rating information. You might need a little help from your company or agent on this one. Companies apply different rating factors for different driving characteristics Thes can include how many miles you drive, your age, your years of driving experience, ticket, accidents, etc. A quick call to your company or agent and they can walk you through these in just a couple minutes.

3. Check your LIABILITY LIMITS. This is usually the first coverage listed. This is probably the most important coverage to examine. This is the coverage that stands between some accident that you may cause and everything that you own.

Individual state laws mandate different minimums. California minimums are 15/30/5. Others are listed here. This means the insurance company will pay up to $15,000 for the injuries you cause to any one person, up to $30,000 for the injuries you cause in any one accident, and up to $5,000 for any property damage you may do (the car, house, light post, whatever you happen to hit). While these limits may seem like lots of money, they can evaporate very quickly. Consider a recent client of mine who sustained injuries in an accident and spent over $14,000 before ever even leaving the emergency room.

My recommendation is to think in terms of at least 100/300/50 instead of whatever your state minimum might be. Consider more if you own a home or have appreciable assets. Cut and slice and minimize on other coverages, but this one is where you protect everything you own against the possibility of a large liability lawsuit.

4. Check your Medical Payments. This is usually listed second. It's the coverage that provides (depending on your state insurance laws) coverage for injuries to you and other pople in your vehicle. There's some overlap here with your health insurance. This can be used to pay deductibles, copayment and other portions of your medical bills that may not be covered by your health insurance.

5. Check the coverage on your vehicle -- Specifically Comprehensive and Collision coverage. Collision coverage pays for your car when you sustain damage from a collision. Comprehensive covers (almost) everything else. Decide if the annual cost of these individual coverages makes sense compared to the value of your car. Check here for a more detailed discussion of this process.

6. Don't neglect Uninsured and/or Under Insuraced Motorist Coverage. There's LOTS of uninsured drivers on the road these days. Some surveys estimate as high as 25%. That means one out of every 4 drivers on the road can be uninsured. This is the coverage that for just a few dollars a year 'constructively' gives all those drivers insurance coverage to pay you if they cause an accident with you. You should consider having limits at least equal to your liability limits (#3 above.)

6. Make sure you're receiving ALL the discounts you can get. Here's where that phone call can pay some dividends. There are many discounts available. There are discounts related to your car: Airbags, alarm system, theft tracker systems and others. There are also other discounts. One of the biggest can be the Multi-Line Discount. This is where you save even more on your auto insurance if you have other policies such as homeowners or life insurance with the same company. Also remember to check for short mileage, good student, mature driver, defensive driving class, loyalty (with the same company for a long time). Just call the company and ask them to list all of the possible discounts to see for which ones you can qualify.

This process might take you a little longer the first time you do it. I suggest you make some notes right on your renewal notice and file it for next time. Then when you get your next renewal, you can get your first one out and compare and use the notes you make to ask more questions that will either save you money or better protect your hard-earned assets.

Till next time...

Dennis Volz Insurance Agency
10783 Jamacha Bl, Suite 1, Spring Valley, CA 91978
OFFICE: (619) 670-1000 - FAX: (619) 670-1121 - Cell (619) 339-1339
Email: Dennis@DennisVolzInsurance.com
Website: Dennis@DennisVolzInsurance.com

This post contains only a general description of coverages and is not your insurance contract. Details of coverage or limits can vary. All coverages are determined by the terms, provisions, exclusions and conditions of your policy along with any endorsements.

Read More

Current State Minimum Auto Insurance Liability Limits

• Alaska 50/100/25
  
• Alabama 20/40/10
  
• Arkansas 25/50/15
  
• Arizona 15/30/10
  
• California 15/30/5
  
• Colorado 25/50/15
  
• Connecticut 20/40/10
  
• Delaware 15/30/5
  
• Florida 10/20/10
  
• Georgia 15/30/10
  
• Hawaii 20/40/10
  
• Idaho 20/50/15
  
• Illinois 20/40/15
  
• Indiana 25/50/10
  
• Iowa 20/40/15
  
• Kansas 25/50/10
  
• Kentucky 25/50/10
  
• Louisiana 10/20/10
  
• Maine 50/100/25
  
• Maryland 20/40/10
  
• Massachusetts 20/40/5
  
• Michigan 20/40/10
  
• Minnesota 30/60/10
  
• Mississippi 25/50/25
  
• Missouri 25/50/10
  
• Montana 25/50/10
  
• Nebraska 25/50/25
  
• New Hampshire 25/50/25
  
• New Jersey 15/30/5
  
• New Mexico 25/50/10
  
• Nevada 15/30/10
  
• New York 25/50/10
  
• North Carolina 30/60/25
  
• North Dakota 25/50/25
  
• Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
  
• Oklahoma 10/20/10
  
• Oregon 25/50/10
  
• Pennsylvania 15/30/5
  
• Rhode Island 25/50/25
  
• South Carolina 15/30/10
  
• South Dakota 25/50/25
  
• Tennessee 25/50/10
  
• Texas 20/40/15
  
• Utah 25/65/15
  
• Virginia 25/50/20
  
• Vermont 25/50/10
  
• Washington 25/50/10
  
• Wisconsin 25/50/10
  
• West Virginia 20/40/10
  
• Wyoming 25/50/20

Read More

Off Topic: Another Ethics Question

No, "ethics" isn't OT here at IB, but the specific subject of this conundrum is:

"In a cash-strapped Idaho high school where signs taped near every light switch remind the staff to save electricity, an enterprising teacher has struck a sponsorship deal with a local pizza shop: Every test, handout and worksheet he passes out to his students reads MOLTO'S PIZZA 14" 1 TOPPING JUST $5 in bright red, inch-high letters printed along the bottom of every page."

As in many places, the economy has taken a toll on Pocatello High School. Teachers still need to teach, of course, and many (most?) are willing to dig into their own pockets to fund special projects. Still, when even paper for tests and handouts is in short supply, creative, out-of-the-box thinking is called for.

Or is it?

"It crosses a line," said Susan Linn, a Harvard psychologist and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "When teachers start becoming pitchmen for products, children suffer and their education suffers as well."

Do they?

I'd like to know what our readers think of this novel approach to education.

Read More

Medicare vs Social Security: The Untold Story

[InsureBlog Exclusive!]

[Welcome YahooNews readers!]

As noted recently, the unlikely (but unfortunately true) story of how opting out of Medicare can adversely affect one's Social Security payments is heating up (for background, click here and here). Briefly, a group of fellow citizens has filed suit against the Fed's because Social Security officials claim that folks must forfeit their Social Security benefits if they withdraw from (or choose not to enroll in) Medicare. This seemed like a fairly important story, yet seems to have flown completely under the MSM radar.

Which is where we come in:

I had a very helpful conversation the other day with lead attorney Kent Brown. Mr Brown's been practicing law for some 35 years, focusing primarily on fighting government meddling in the health care industry. Not coincidentally, he was also the lead attorney in the case to force open then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's closed-door health care task force.

I asked Mr Brown how he came to be associated with this case, and he told me that he was initially contacted by Brian Hall, a gentleman who chose to opt out of Medicare coverage once he became eligible. Mr Hall was told that he could, of course, choose to do so, but at the cost of his Social Security benefits. This didn't seem fair, and so he approached Mr Brown to see if there was any legal recourse. The case has snowballed, and there are now five plaintiffs (including Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey).

Why, though, would someone choose to forgo health coverage for which one has already paid? Opting out of Medicare may be legal, but is it smart? Mr Brown explained that there are many reasons why someone might choose to decline it, including the desire to make one's own health care decisions without government intervention. Folks see what's happening in England, for example, and want no part of that.

Basically, it comes down to choices: some (many?) folks want no part of a system that allows the government to dictate their health care alternatives. Then, too, there's the matter of privacy, which is also a concern for many of these folks.

So why was the Social Security Administration telling Mr Hall that it was all or nothing? Is there something in the original Medicare legislation that dictated this? Surprisingly, the answer is no. Social Security states that one who is 62 years old and otherwise eligible "shall be entitled to" Medicare [ed: this was obviously added after the initial legislation, which of course predates Medicare]. Nothing in the Social Security or Medicare statutes state that one must take Medicare in order to receive Social Security payments (or vice versa). There are explicit conditions set forth under which one might lose Social Security benefits, but lack of a Medicare card isn't among them.

So how did this come about? Well, according to Mr Brown, there are three provisions in the Social Security Program operating manual that bear on this subject; it's important to note, though, that these are not laws or even regulations. This came about not by statute, but by bureaucratic fiat. The first two of these provisions were inserted in August of 1993 [ed: interesting timing, no?], and the last one in 2002.

The case is moving along; the most recent development is the one which caught my eye earlier this week: the government has filed a routine motion to dismiss, and Mr Brown has countered with one for summary judgment. The judge has set a May 22nd date to hear arguments regarding the motion to dismiss; if that motion is quashed, the government will be given time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. That will probably be in late summer.

I had to ask, and so I did: what happens if the judge grants the government's motion to dismiss? Mr Brown quickly replied that they'd go right to the Appeals Court; the plaintiffs are totally committed to this fight. He also noted that the judge is quite well versed in the subject area, and has her own wry sense of humor (and irony). We agreed that a quote from her would be just the thing with which to conclude this post:

"It is passing strange that the Social Security Administration would insist on individuals being forced to enroll in one bankrupt program in order to be in another one that overruns its budget."

Read More

Oy Canada?

Did Canada's National Healthcare System "kill" Natasha Richardson?

That's the question raised by the New York Post. For the record, let us note that we are truly sorry for her family's loss, and wish to score no "points" from this tragedy. Still, it may be worth examining the premise of the allegations to see if those who advocate that we should adopt such a system are justified.

First, Canada's gummint-run system isn't too keen on high tech health care:

"About three hours after the accident, the actress was taken to Centre Hospitalier Laurentien, in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, 25 miles from the resort ... But Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts is a town of 9,000 people. Its hospital doesn't have specialized neurology or trauma services. It hasn't been reported whether the hospital has a CT scanner, but CT scanners are less common in Canada [than in the US]."

I read some years ago that there were more MRI machines in Ohio than in all of Canada; I don't know whether that's still the case. But a system that relies on government largesse is unlikely to be profligate with "the tech."

And there's this:

"Quebec has no helicopter services to trauma centers in Montreal. Richardson was transferred by ambulance to Hospital du Sacre-Coeur, a trauma center 50 miles away in Montreal -- a further delay of over an hour."

That hour might have been key: after a certain interval, it seems that a less-than-optimal outcome is essentially inevitable. According to the Post, she didn't receive necessary care until some six hours after the incident, which drastically reduced her chances of survival.

For once, though, I'm willing to cut "CanCare" a break: it appears that, immediately following the initial incident, she was conscious and ambulatory, and appeared to be okay. I'm told that this is fairly common with this kind of head trauma (it helps to have a surgeon in the family). Obviously, just appearing to be okay was deceiving, but what else were those on the scene to do? She was a grown woman, not a child, and presumably able to make decisions regarding her own care.

Hard to believe, but I'm going to give Our Neighbors to the North© a pass on this [ed: how noble of you].

Read More

Your Tooth Dollars at Work

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Many may not know it, but Medicaid covers dental care. This taxpayer funded program for low income people has pretty good benefits . . . if you can find a dentist willing to accept the low reimbursement levels.

In Georgia the number that seems most accurate hovers around 4% of dentists are willing to treat Medicaid patients.

Apparently there are some dentists in New York who are more than happy to treat Medicaid patients.

Earlier this year, auditors from the state comptroller’s office noticed that a Brooklyn dentist, Dr. Alan Zukor, had billed Medicaid for giving several patients fillings for all 32 of their teeth on a single day.

When they looked a little closer, they noticed that in several of the cases, Dr. Zukor had also submitted a claim for pulling those same teeth — all of them — from the same patients. The records seemed to show a bizarre and painful waste of dental care.

The bizarre part I get. It is the painful portion I don't.

“The human mouth typically holds 32 teeth,” Mr. DiNapoli said in a statement. “Billing Medicaid for filling and then pulling all 32 teeth from seven different patients within a few weeks should have raised a red flag.”

Red flag? Yes, you would think . . .

According to Mr. DiNapoli, in one instance, Dr. Zukor claimed he filled 30 teeth for one patient in two office visits. On a single day in January 2008, he claimed he filled 243 teeth for 18 patients; a month later, in February, he claimed he extracted 256 teeth from eight patients, or 32 teeth per patient.

Jewish people refer to this as Chutzpah.

I just call it incredibly stupid.

But apparently this is not the only N.Y. dentist who is creative in his Medicaid billing.

ALBANY, N.Y. Auditors say the state Medicaid program may have overpaid $2.9 million for services like teeth cleaning for toothless patients.

Do they floss too?

Auditors identified almost 22,000 questionable services for about 6,500 patients with dentures during the five-year period ending June 30, 2008. That included almost 1,500 dentists who billed Medicaid $863,000 for cleanings, fillings, extractions and X-rays for about 5,000 patients with full dentures.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Read More

Shattering Myths (Again)

We've busted the "Myth of the 46 Million" (or 47 million, or, well, pick a number) many times here at IB, but we're always happy to keep kicking that particular canard as many times as necessary. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau, there were some 46 million folks here in the States without health insurance. Of course, as we've also pointed out countless times, being without health insurance does not mean being without access to health care.

But I digress.

The problem with that number is that it's meaningless: for one thing, almost 10 million of those folks (over 20%) aren't even citizens. That leaves something like 36 million Americans who are uninsured.

Or does it?

An even closer look reveals some amazing perfidy:

"As even the authors of the Census Bureau report themselves acknowledge, "health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported" in the Current Population Survey from which the health insurance data is derived."

That is, the survey takes place in February, and has no way to adjust for the fact that many (most?) of these folks will have coverage in place sometime in the next 10 months. Or, they might reply that, although they're currently covered, they were uninsured at least part of the previous year and, voila, they're "uninsured."

And of course there's the issue of why they're uninsured. Many folks believe, erroneously, that they can't afford even catastrophic health coverage. And finally, there are those folks who qualify for government coverage (Medicare/Medicaid) who for whatever reason opt out (or are unaware of the availability).

But wait, there's more good news:

According to CNN (not exactly rightwing shills), most insured Americans (80% of them!) are actually satisfied with their health care, and about 75% are happy with their insurance coverage, as well.

They're also less than thrilled with the cost of health care, which continues to escalate (but that's another post).

[Hat Tip: American Spectator]

Read More

GPMS

That's an amalgam of two seemingly disparate acronyms; this bleeding edge technology is designed to help those of the "Y Chromosome" set more effectively and pleasantly interact with those who sport the "Double X." Specifically:

"PMSbuddy.com, a free Internet-based service that tracks the monthly cycles of a subscriber's significant other and offers e-mail reminders about the impending deadlines."

Modeled after other social networking sites (e.g. Twitter, FaceBook, etc), this may be the ultimate expression of MySpace. And it's certainly swelling: enrollment topped 150,000 last month, of which almost 15,000 are of the aforementioned "Double X" persuasion (although those numbers may be padded).

Although the service started off using email technology, founder Jordan Eisenberg has upped the ante by introducing a phone-based PMSsaging system, as well. The purported demographic for the site is men aged 20 to 40. But as mentioned above, a lot of females are using it, too; Eisenberg warns, though, that this method isn't for tracking fertility.

Read More

Cavalcade of Risk #74 now online

Wenchy hosts this week's roundup of all things risk. And to show our gratitude, we'll pass along her bleg for swag (you'll have to click over to her Cav to get that).

On a personal note, this may be the best Cav yet: Wenchy's obviously read each post, and she offers her own insights into them, as well. Kudos!

Read More

Italian Medico: True Dedication

Sometimes, it's the little things that mean a lot.

Take, for example, Naples-based neurosurgeon [ed: a real brain surgeon, not a "rocket surgeon?" Yes.] was performing a delicate operation to remove a tumor, when he had his own little medical problem.

Well, not so little, after all:

"An Italian surgeon had a heart attack while performing a brain cancer operation but carried on until he had removed the patient's tumour."

Now, an ordinary surgeon might have stepped aside, and tended to his own immediate medical needs. Not Dr Claudio Vitale (no apparent relation):

"I couldn't leave him at such a delicate moment ...I'm not a hero, I only did my duty."

I think most of us would beg to differ. There's a big difference between a headache and a heart attack, and one could easily be forgiven for immediately addressing the latter. Dr Vitale, though, was having none of that:

"Vitale suffered chest pains while he was halfway through the brain op but refused his team's efforts to persuade him to get emergency treatment."

The good news is that both the surgeon and his patient are "already on the mend."

Read More

AIG Update: Vindication [UPDATED]

Last week, I noted that the the punitive-tax bill targeting bonus-receiving AIG execs was "clearly unconstitutional." At least one commenter took exception to that; at the time, Rick had an ally in left-leaning Harvard (Constitutional) Law Professor Lawrence Tribe. Professor Tribe opined that "the goal is not to punish corporate executives generally, but is simply to ensure the appropriate use of government funds," and thus was not a Bill of Attainder.

But that was then, and this is now:

"Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who advised Obama during the campaign ... says he’s leaning towards seeing the new House bill to tax back all the AIG bonuses as unconstitutional."

Score one for IB (et al).

I also made the point that were such a bill to become law, it would be challenging (to put it mildly) to find competent executives to help right the listing ship of industry; after all, "who wants to take that job for free?"

Lo and behold, no less than the administration itself "has concluded that it needs the private sector to play a central role in fixing the economy. So over the weekend, the White House worked to tone down its Wall Street bashing and to win support from top bankers for the bailout plan."

Score 2 for the good guys.

Okay, enough with the "atta boy's." Back to work.

UPDATE - And thus it begins: I suspect that this is merely the first in what will be a litany of (now former) AIG execs who have "had enough:"

"It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products...Most of those responsible [for the CDS's at the root of the meltdown] have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage...Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored."

Read the whole thing.

And remember it when the gummint has a hard time finding competent folks to rebuild the devastated companies; you own more than one.

Read More

Good News, Bad News

[Welcome Kaiser Network readers!]

After trudging through deserts, swamps and steamy jungles for days, the troops were called to order and addressed by the Commander.

"We have good news, and we have bad news. First, the good news. Everyone get's a change of underwear."

Cheers go up from the crowd.

"Now, the bad news. Joe, you change with Sam. Sam, you change with Bill, Bill . ."

USA Today is reporting that the health insurance industry is offering " to curb its controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of medical problems."

That's the good news.

Now the bad news.

EVERYONE pays a higher premium. Based on what we see in states that prohibit medical underwriting, expect rates to be 200% - 300% higher.

two insurance industry groups said their members are willing to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage.

So now everyone will be required to have coverage, much like the way auto insurance is handled in most states. Of course there is a difference with auto. High risk individuals can only get coverage through SR-22 programs.

Does this mean a similar plan will evolve for health insurance?

And if 48,000,000 can't afford health insurance now (most are insurable), how will they afford it when it is mandated?

The companies left themselves several outs, however. The letter said they would still charge different premiums based on such factors as age, place of residence, family size and benefits package.

This is an "out?"

Seems to me auto insurance carriers charge different rates based on the type of car you drive, where you live, your driving record . . .

Are these considered "outs" as well?

Small employers who offer coverage can see their premiums zoom up from one year to the next, even if just one worker or family member gets seriously ill.

Zoom, but subject to state limits.

Is Karen Ignani that misinformed about the industry?

Apparently so.

Maybe she should run for Congress. Seems like a good fit.

Read More

Meals Served with a Health Insurance Garnish

When I first read this, I thought my eyes were deceiving me. Can it be true that the Golden Gate (as in San Francisco) Restaurant Association has actually filed a suit to STOP the city from requiring employers to provide health insurance?

Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria said he'll file a response to the emergency request by March 27 and said the court could rule that same day.

"I think their motion is frivolous," Chhabria said. "GGRA's goal of taking away health care from tens of thousands of workers does not constitute an emergency that would require immediate Supreme Court attention."

This begs the question, which is more important? Job's or health insurance.

Of course Chhabria is clearly not a regular reader of InsureBlog or else he would know that lack of health insurance is not the same as lack of health care. Plenty of people obtain health care without the benefit of health insurance.

I have a problem with government intervention in the free market. If an employer CHOOSES to provide health insurance as a benefit, that is their prerogative. Same if they opt not to provide insurance.

In much the same way, if an employee wants a job that comes with health insurance they should seek out those jobs and bypass the ones that do not meet their need.

One restaurant has a novel idea that I like. They have what amounts to a tip jar to cover the cost of health insurance.

At the bustling French bistro Zazie in San Francisco's Cole Valley, one dollar goes a long way. That's how much owner Jennifer Piallat charges each customer to pay for health care for her 32 employees.

The dollars add up to about $11,000 a month - enough to provide Kaiser Permanente medical insurance, dental insurance and a 4 percent employer match on 401(k) retirement accounts.

How do customers react to the surcharge?

She said only 1 percent of her customers have complained about the surcharge. "And they were the 1 percent we didn't want to come back anyway," she said.

I am going to steal that idea and pass it along to my clients.

Read More

MVNHS©: Out of this World (And Into the 3rd)

Those that favor a gummint-run health care system, ala the Brits' NHS (known to IB regulars as the MVNHS©) generally gloss over the many failings of such schemes. We've been pointing them out for years, focusing primarily on issues of cost control and rationing of services. There's now growing evidence that, rather than elevating health care, such systems actually demean those who need it:

"Appalling standards of care that may have contributed to the deaths of at least 400 patients at a hospital trust were missed repeatedly by managers and regulators...A report by the Healthcare Commission into death rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust found that receptionists were given responsibility for carrying out medical checks and patients were left screaming in pain for hours."

Oh yeah, sign me right up!

One shudders to think.

But it actually gets worse:

"Families have described Third World conditions at the trust, with some patients drinking water from vases and others left on trolleys for hours without medication."

This is not the MVNHS© we thought we knew.

Also keep in mind that this hospital was repeatedly cited as a model of health care, lauded for its "elite foundation status and [continuing] to receive positive annual reports." Which begs the question: if this is the expected level of care at an elite facility, what must it be like at "normal" ones?

Tell me again why such a system is preferable to our own?

Read More

Grand Rounds is up!

Code Blog hosts this week's collection of medposts, presented as a narrative covering a lot of ground.

Read More

A Stimulating Conundrum

Washington's idea of a stimulus package seems to be springing leaks. They want to spend taxpayer money to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

So why are they buying condoms from China?

the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S.-made AIDS-preventing condoms in poor countries around the world.

But not anymore.

They will still be handing out condoms, just not ones made in the United States.

In a move expected to cost 300 American jobs, the government is switching to cheaper off-shore condoms, including some made in China.

Outsourcing condoms. What is the world coming to?

"Of course, we considered how many U.S. jobs would be affected by this move,” said a USAID official who spoke on the condition that he would not be named. But he said the reasons for the change included lower prices (2 cents versus more than 5 cents for U.S.-made condoms) and the fact that Congress dropped “buy American language” in a recent appropriations bill.

Makes you wonder how effective is a 2 cent condom?

Or a nickel one for that matter.

Besides, he said, the sole U.S. supplier — an Alabama company called Alatech — had previous delivery problems under the program.

Delivery problems. Probably a joke in there somewhere but this is serious business.

It's clear that Alatech's problems over the years, which apparently have been resolved, may have driven U.S. officials to seek much less expensive foreign-made condoms in the first place.

But that's cold comfort to Fannie Thomas, who has been making AIDS-preventing condoms in southeastern Alabama for nearly 40 years in the small town of Eufaula.

When the company loses this contract the plant will have no choice but to shut down, putting some 300 people, including Fannie Thomas, out of work.

Read More

Social Security vs Medicare: Update

Previously, we learned that "opting out of Medicare benefits also means opting out of Social Security benefits, as well." Not that this made any sense, but there you go.

Today's email brought an update from the group that's challenging this rather strange legal loophole:

"The plaintiffs ... urged the court late last week to reject government efforts to have the case dismissed ... the plaintiffs asked the court to grant their request for summary judgment and to issue a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the illegal regulations."

So it appears that the lawsuit is still alive, and plodding forward. I've asked the group's contact person if I could interview one of the folks litigating the suit. We'll continue to keep you posted on this unique, and perhaps important, situation.

Read More

Up In Smoke

Feeling nauseous from chemotherapy? Take a hit of weed.

Medical marijuana has been the butt of jokes for some time. The use of marijuana to offset the side effects of chemo is well known but only legal in a few jurisdictions.

But it seems the new Washington regime is sending a message there is a new sheriff in town and he is here to clean things up.

The Obama administration isn’t going to bust stores that are following state laws allowing the sale of marijuana when approved for use by a doctor. But the DOJ will go after stores being used as fronts for drug dealers, Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday.

It’s been clear for a while that the Obama administration would depart from the Bush administration’s practices of using the DEA to bust marijuana dispensaries that officials said were following state law but violating federal law, which doesn’t recognize a medical use of marijuana.

So who has jurisdiction here? The feds and the DEA or the state of Cah-lee-for-neeah?

According to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder . . .

The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law, to the extent that people do that and try to use medical marijuana laws as a shield for activity that is not designed to comport with what the intention was of the state law. Those are the organizations, the people, that we will target. And that is consistent with what the president said during the campaign.

Sounds like "lawyer speak" to me.

Read More

Increase in Screening is Jade's Legacy

Questions remain over the coverage of the tragic death of Reality TV star Jade Goody, we found some of it rather intrusive (ie pictures of her family leaving her bedside day after day), although apparently Jade herself was keen to document her final days in detail.

Anyway, press coverage notwithstanding, it seems that Jade's fight has had a positive effect on the cervical cancer screening rates amongst the traditionally hard two traditonally hard-to- reach demographics - the 25 to 35 year old age group, and people of lower socioeconomic groups.

According to BBC News:

Julietta Patnick, director of NHS screening programmes, said some laboratories are reporting a 20% increase in cases, others as much as 50%.

On targeting persons from socioeconomic sectors, medical director of Cancer Partners UK, Professor Karol Sikora told the BBC:

"What is interesting is that if you look at the number of people who take up the offers, it is on average 70%.

"If you break that down to socioeconomic groupings it is about 90% in class one - wealthy and educated people - and something like 50% in some geographical areas of Britain where there are predominantly people living in deprivation with poor education," he said.

"What Jade's story does is get to groups you can not get to with other methods.

"Putting out a leaflet or an advert on TV just does not work.

"She appeals to socioeconomic groups four and five, people who read the tabloids rather than the broadsheets."

Increasing the awareness of this issue withing these difficult spheres is a signififcant legacy for Jade to leave. Hopefully early detection will ensure that thousands of other won't share her fate.

Read More

World Down Syndrome Day

Just wanted to note that today is World Down Syndrome Awareness Day. This date was chosen for its significance:

"On March 21st, 2009, World Down Syndrome Day will mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of Professor Jerome Lejeune's discovery of the extra copy of chromosome 21 which causes Down Syndrome.

Now known as trisomy-21 because of the third copy of the 21st chromosome, Down Syndrome was first described by the English doctor, John Langdon Down, in 1866 but until Professor Lejeune's publication in 1959, the ultimate cause of Down Syndrome was unknown."

The chromosome abnormality that underlies the diagnosis of Down Syndrome is known as trisomy 21 (hence 3/21).

The condition affects some 350,000 people here in the US, many of whom lead meaningful lives, participate in sports (e.g. Special Olympics, bowling) and hold steady jobs.

Read More

About Those AIG Bonuses...

The more I read about this, the more convinced I've become that:

1) The bonuses themselves comprise an inconsequential amount of the total AIG bailout (now approaching the $170 Billion mark)

2) They represent a promise to AIG employees to stay on during a time of extreme turbulence, with little hope of career advancement in the firm or elsewhere (indeed, one might be tempted to forgo mentioning one's tenure at AIG altogether). In fact, the affected employees weren't even in the division of AIG that contributed (caused?) the melt-down.

3) Congress knew of these bonuses well in advance (cf: the Dodd Amendment)

Actually, I'm with Sen Dodd (D-CT) on this: these folks should be well compensated for their service.

Now, these same Congresscritters have passed a clearly unconstitutional bill in an effort to clean up a mess of their own making. This is not just bad law, it is bad business practice: why would anyone take such a job, knowing that the compensation promised to them could be revoked at the slightest whim? This is why CEO's insist on, and get, "golden parachutes:" to entice them to come aboard a potentially sinking ship, in order to try to their best to salvage what they can.

Which brings up the next problem: we now own 80% of a failing financial giant, which is in desparate need of competent, expert helmsmanship, and we've just announced that whatever sucker takes the job can't rely on being adequately compensated for it. That's dangerous and stupid.

What happens when the next AIG falls through the floor? Will we bail them out, too? And how are we going to guarantee whomever is tapped to bring them up to snuff that they're not working pro bono?

I'll reiterate that we should never have bailed out AIG in the first place, but essentially shooting the messengers isn't going to get us out of this mess. We now own 80% of the firm, and the government now has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders (that's thee and me, fellow taxpayer) to do all in its power to empower AIG to right itself. That's not going to happen if it can't attract, much less retain, the caliber of executive necessary to turn things around.

As I said in a recent comment, "Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress."

Read More

Cavalcade of Risk #74: Call for Submissions

Wench Wisdom hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk, which goes up on the 25th. Submissions are due by this coming Monday (the 23rd). Please be sure to include:

■ Your blog's url

■ Your post's url

■ The post's trackback URL (if available)

■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

Read More

Beware the Spider . . .

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet eating her curds and whey. Along came a spider who sat down beside her and frightened Miss Muffet away.

We don't know what kind of spider spooked Miss Muffet but it probably wasn't a Brazilian Wandering Spider.

Banana's are good for you but don't eat the spider.

A Brazilian Wandering Spider was found on a stalk of banana's at Whole Foods in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Fortunately a worker spotted the spider and trapped it before it could do any harm.

The spider was given to University of Tulsa Animal Facilities director Terry Childs who said this type of spider kills more people than any other.

Childs said a bite will kill a person in about 25 minutes and while there is an antidote he doesn't know of any in the Tulsa area.

Most bite related trips to the Emergency Room in the U.S. are for dog bites, but they also get their share of insect bites.

Oddly, the Brazilian spider delivers more than a painful bite that sends most victims to the hospital. Researchers have found its venom also stimulates an hours-long erection in men.

Patients not only experience overall pain and an increase in blood pressure, they also sport an uncomfortable erection.

Good to know . . . if I am ever in Brazil . . .

In Brazil, emergency room staff can immediately spot the victims of a bite.

Just a wag, but it is probably easier to spot the bite on male patients.

The good news is, Brazilian Wandering Spiders are a rarity in the U.S., but there are plenty of other situations that can result in a trip to the Emergency Room. Each year there are over 28,000,000 visits to the Emergency Room for accident related injury. Georgia health insurance can protect you from financial ruin when an accident requires emergency treatment. Our Smart Accident Medical plan can cover 100% of accident related expenses up to $250,000.

SAM is a GUARANTEED ACCEPTANCE plan. There are no health questions or physical exams to qualify for the coverage. Coverage can be effective as early as the next day following receipt of your application with payment of the first months premium.

Your Smart Acccident Medical plan can be paired with any major medical policy including high deductible plans or offered as a stand alone plan for the uninsured.

Read More

Health Wonk Review is up

Uber-wonk David Harlow hosts this week's roundup of health care polity and policy.

If you haven't read a 'Review, you're missing a chance to see what other folks are saying, thinking and suggesting.

Read More

Update Mania: Things That End With "A"

■ COBRA/ARRA: From the mailbag, we get this inquiry from Pete Peterson:

"Has anyone addressed the Pre-x issue concerning the new law. For example it seems that an employee could be involuntary terminated without paying the premium for 5 months, then come back on the plan by paying 35% of one months premium, have both knees replaced with no pre-x conditions because the creditable coverage period does not apply.

If the participant discontinues coverage after one month the adverse carrier risk is brutal to say the least."

Unfortunately (for the carrier, at least), this is correct. ARRA defines a "late-electing person" as one who had previously been offered, and rejected, COBRA extension, and who subsequently became eligible under the new rules [ed: new "rules?" Are they really "rules" if they can be changed on a whim?]. Such a person could, indeed hop back on the plan by simply paying their portion of one month's premium, have such a procedure, then bail.

As a practical matter, though, I'm not convinced that this will be a common occurrence. For one thing, they'll still have their deductible and co-insurance, and the pre-cert requirements may well take longer than the person would have under this one-month scenario. Also, any such procudure is likely to require follow-up care, not to mention rehab, which would also take at least a few months.

■ Aetna/Humana: FoIB Rick emails that this is more likely to be a distraction than a certainty; it seems that there's more happening under the radar than in plain sight:

"WellPoint ... announced today that it has selected Availity, LLC as a strategic part of its suite of online provider solutions."

Rick explains that "Availity is working towards -- and in testing in selected Florida markets has actually achieved -- real-time claims adjudication, the Holy Grail of claims processing." One of the challenges of Consumer Driven Health Plans (e.g. HSA) is lack of hard data at time of service. Since there's no co-pay, and the provider generally has no real idea of what that claim will really cost (after repricing and depending on deductible and/or co-insurance), most folks leave the office parting with no cash. The doc then has to wait for the claim to be processed for payment to be received, from either the insured or the carrier (or some combination of the two).

A system that allows the provider to immediately know how much to collect from a patient, and the patient immediately knows what the service will cost, is a major step towards more transparent health care delivery. This is a good thing.

In related news, however, Rick reports that the aforementioned partnership now adds up to almost 50 million "medical lives, not counting Part D standalone or Med supp members, from the first, fourth, seventh and thirteenth largest insurers in the country. Hmmm. The words "too big to fail" come to mind, and not necessarily in a good way."

A year ago, I would have pooh-poohed such sentiments, but based on the AIG and Big 3 fiascos, I'm not so quick to dismiss this concern. On the other hand, there's not much we can do about it (even if we wanted to) except to hope for the best.

Read More

P&C PSA: State Farm Pulls Plush Promos

Back in the day, State Farm agents were famed for handing out free road atlases (atlasi?) to new and prospective insureds. Recently, though, they've done some image modification, and traded in maps for toys.

Unfortunately, the idea seems to have backfired a bit:

"State Farm said on Tuesday that more than 800,000 teddy bears given out in North America as part of a company promotion were being recalled because of a choking hazard."

This is, of course, serious business: if you or a loved one have received one of these, please contact your nearest SF agent for instructions on how to dispose of the dangerous trinket.

Read More

Stafford Hospital Scandal - Symptomatic of a failing system?

We are sure that like us, you felt an immense degree of shock and anger over the reports reagdrding the extent of the emergency care failings at Stafford General Hospital. It is unbelieveable that in this day and age a hospital is allowed to decline so much that 400 'excess deaths' can occur.

This data came from a Healthcare Commission report into the hospital published this week - although it did caveat that the cause of these 'excess deaths' could not be directly attributed to bad care.

According to the report almost 'every stage' of Staffords emergency service department had major failings, with managers consistently pursuing target levels ahead of ordinary patient care.

It seems that this combined with low levels of staff, inadequate nursing, poor levels of equipment, no real leadership, lack of training and ineffective problem management systems contributed to the overall shambolic nature of this department.

The Prime Minister Gordon Brown has today publicly apologised for the failing hospital. He said:

"We do apologise to those people who have suffered as a result of the mistakes that have been made at Stafford Hospital."

He did not however place any blame upon the target based system of managing NHS hospitals, instead highlighting "low standards of management".

What is of particular worry to us here at YPHI is that we are not entirely confident that Stafford is the only NHS hospital that has suffered from such a devastating combination of failures. Are poor management practices and unrealistic target levels turning too many of our hospitals into Spreadsheet-run establishments with little regard paid to patient care? or is this entire sorry episode sympomatic of a system creaking under the weight of an ageing population and rising crime levels?

Let us know your opinions.

Read More

Real Life Life-Line?

One of my very favorite sci-fi authors, Robert A Heinlein, wrote a haunting short story about a scientist, Pinero, who discovered a means to literally and accurately determine one's date of death. Called "Life-Line," it was RAH's very first published story.

Today, actuaries and underwriters use "Mortality Tables" to guesstimate how long one might live. These are based not on the length of one's "world line," but the Law of Large Numbers. Obviously, an underwriter has no idea when you are going to die, just the likelihood of it in a certain timeframe.

Now, the folks at The Quiet Company have come up with their own version of Dr Pinero's device. Called the "LifeSpan Calculator," one answers a series of questions, and the LSC calculates how many years one has left on this mortal coil. It even offers suggestions on how to improve that number. It took me only a few moments to calculate my likely lifespan, and the questions were quite user-friendly.

Definitely worth a click.

Read More

A Few (More) Words on AIG [UPDATED 3/17/09 AND BUMPED]

[Please scroll down for updates. HGS]

I haven't commented on the recent kerfluffle regarding the massive bonuses planned for the former insurance behemoth's executive squad, primarily because there doesn't seem to be any need to: it's getting quite enough play in the press.

But it seems to me that remaining silent might be construed as condoning the idea, and that, of course, will not do. So, for the record, while I don't believe that these execs should be forced to commit hari kiri, I do think that any bonuses should be remanded forthwith to the federal treasury, and used to help pay off the carrier's massive debt to the citizenry.

On the gripping hand though, there's this:

Current CEO Edward M Liddy avers that he has ""grave concerns" about the impact on the firm's ability to retain talented staff "if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury." And that may well be a valid point: if they can't attract, and retain, top-notch talent, what are the chances that they'll ever be in a position to repay us? Reason #14,287 why we never should have bailed them out in the first place.

UPDATE: In the comments, Bob takes me to task for missing the big picture:

"(T)his is a multi-faceted situation with no simple or direct solutions...The bigger problem with AIG is this. What did they do with the taxpayer money?

Apparently they used it to make several banks "whole". Billions were funneled back to Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and others...

Sorry Hank, but targeting the bonuses misses the mark. There are MUCH bigger issues."

Well hey, it wouldn't be any fun if we agreed ALL the time. I think Bob's quite correct that there are other, perhaps larger issues at stake here. But it seems to me that even the appearance of impropriety, especially on such a volatile issue, is cause for a hard look.

UPDATE 2: It seems that not only are there contractual issues (which Rick also mentioned in the comments), there appears to be a specific, legal requirement to fulfill these obligations. Apparently, as the Senate was crafting the Spendulus last month, Sen Christopher Dodd (D-CT) "unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law." [emphasis added]

Although this is probably irrelevant, it should also be noted that Senator Dodd (D-CT) "was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org."

A lousy $100k? Sheesh, what a bunch of pikers!

Read More

Good Health News: Mid March Edition

First up, good news for cancer patients:

"Pfizer ... said (on March 12) that a Phase 3 trial of its Sutent cancer drug has been halted early because the drug showed "significant benefit" in patients with advanced pancreatic islet cell tumors."

And why, you may be asking, is this good news?

Because all of those cancer patients taking part in the trial "will have the option to continue taking Sutent or be switched from placebo to Sutent." One presumes that those on the placebo will opt for the "real thing," but I wonder if any of the patients experienced the "placebo effect."

Next up, good news for those who worry about suffering from Alzheimer's (or are concerned about loved ones who might):

"A new test can accurately detect Alzheimer's disease in its earliest stages, before dementia symptoms surface and widespread damage occurs."

This new test looks at the proteins in one's spinal fluid; these proteins are believed to be an indicator of Alzheimer's. The test itself was shown to be effective in almost 9 cases out of 10, accurately "predicting which patients with early memory problems and other symptoms of cognitive impairment would eventually be diagnosed with Alzheimer's."

Of course, any good news in this area is welcome, but it's important to remember that this is a predictor, not a cure.

Third, FoIB Holly Robinson emailed this link announcing some good news about ovarian cancer screenings. This dread disease is considered quite treatable if caught in the early stages, but only about 25% of these invasive cancers are detected then. A new study seems to show much promise, claiming that "postmenopausal women who are screened for ovarian cancer either by transvaginal ultrasound scan or by a blood test followed by a scan are more likely to have their cancers detected at early stages, with almost half the cancers picked up before they had spread beyond the pelvis."

So, ladies, get those screenings!

Finally, Fox News reports that there's good news for folks suffering from certain food allergies:

Read More

Extra! Extra! Read All About Grand Rounds!

Ryan DuBosar of ACP Internist blog hosts this week's roundup of top-flight medposts. He's built his edition, appropriately enough, to resemble a newspaper. Very creative, and quite well done.

Read More

Sniper Fire . . . the Battle Continues

Georgia health insurance recently posted on a rumored plan to save taxpayer dollars by requiring Vet's to pay for their own health care. We were incredulous but somewhat comforted by the thought this plan will never get off the ground.

Perhaps we were a bit hasty . . .

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

I said it before. I will say it again.

You're kidding, right?

This is wrong on so many fronts.

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Of all the confrontational moves Obamaman has done this has got to be the most egregious.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

Insidious.

Read More

Humana, Aetna Nuptials?

Doth the lady protest too much? That's the question, and the buzz, in home offices around the country:

"Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc. capped a brisk week of trading Friday when their shares rose as several reports surfaced that one insurer might want to buy the other."

So far there's scant evidence that any of this is true, but that obviously hasn't stopped the speculation [ed: which, of course, we're feeding].

This is developing, so we'll be updating as necessary.

[Hat Tip: Industry Radar]

Update 1: IF this merger takes place, it does make some sense. There's a synergy that the two carriers would offer since, combined, they'd be in pretty much the same league as the Big Boys (WellPoint and UHC). Also, this might help to solve one of Humana's problems (network issues) and, perhaps, some of Aetna's (lack of ability to actually write business). More later.

Read More