Shecantbeserious steps in it, jumps up and down

I don't understand why the various states' Departments of Insurance aren't up in arms about ObamaCare©'s blatant flaunting of McCarran-Ferguson:

"Today [May 19th, 2011], The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final regulation to ensure that large health insurance premium increases will be thoroughly reviewed... In 2011, this will mean rate increases of 10-percent or more must be reviewed by state or federal officials."

A few months ago, Mike averred that this would, in fact, be good news:

"HHS has once again underestimated the intelligence of the American public ... The increase to premiums year over year, and over many years, tracks exactly with the increase in the cost of medical benefits paid."

That is, he offers proof of our oft-repeated claim that the increasing cost of health care drives the increasing cost of health insurance.

I think he's right, but I think there's another point here that's gone unremarked. Some of us are old enough to remember the early 70's, when gasoline became subject to price controls. The result was, at first, longer lines at the pump, and eventually rationing (ie you could fill up only every other day). Health insurance companies can't ration health care, of course, but they certainly can ration health insurance. I've already noticed a significant tightening in underwriting, and much higher than "normal" rate increases (particularly in small group).

To illustrate this point, imagine that Washington imposes strict new safety and efficiency requirements on automobile manufacturers, and then limits how much they can charge for new cars. Does this make any sense?

But that's exactly what's happening with health insurance: new mandated benefits, and a cap on how much more insurers can charge for providing them.

There are two points to be made here. First, as regards McCarran-Ferguson, why aren't state DOI's asserting their jurisdiction over rate increases? Why have they ceded that function to HHS and the minions of Secretary Shecantbeserious?

Second, it's apparently not just legacy media types who don't "get" simple, basic economic principles. The one in operation here is supply and demand: when you add "freebies" to insurance policies (routine exams, mammograms and colonoscopies, to name a few), people will go get them. Problem is, there are only so many providers, which means that there will be waiting lines and higher costs.

Of course, Ms Shecantbeserious (as well as Barry, Harry and Nancy) would probably view those as features, not bugs.

Read More

Is It Working Yet?

Is Obamacare actually reducing the cost of health insurance and health care? The short answer is no, and it never will.

The folks at Consumer Reports fielded this question and fumbled miserably.

Rather than actually reporting, they took the short route and repeated political rhetoric and theories from the talking heads in the lame stream media.

CR cited these as reasons for hope and change in health insurance pricing.

Unchecked increases in premiums, record insurance company profits, price transparency through imposed medical loss ratio's.

Horse feathers!

Profits Are Good, Not Bad

Insurers are raising premiums on an as needed basis in order to remain profitable. Profit margins on health insurance average about 4% on gross premiums. That means that every $100 in premiums paid yields about $4 in profit. If carriers had no profit there would not be a noticeable drop in premiums.

Looked at another way, if carriers are not profitable they may lack the ability to pay claims which would be much more disastrous than making a nominal profit.

Medical Loss Ratio's Are Meaningless

The mandated medical loss ratio is a mixed bag. While some carriers may have had more margin than others on certain lines, the only thing that really mattered in a competitive market is how does their premium rates compare with others offering a similar plan?

As someone who has worked in the health insurance industry for over 35 years I can tell you consumers are not stupid. They automatically gravitate toward the plan that appears to offer the best value. They could care less about loss ratio's, profit margins or CEO pay. As long as they get a "good deal" the rest is superfluous.

Rate Hikes Are Necessary

All this talk about price transparency is mostly political grandstanding and saber rattling. If the carrier is experiencing a loss, or anticipates a loss on a line of business they must either raise rates to a sustainable level or withdraw from the market. Blue Shield of California has already announced their intention to pull out of the under age 65 major medical market. This decision comes on the heels of other small carriers who have likewise folded and stopped writing new business.

Over-regulation and micro-managing for the sake of winning votes means the consumer loses. When carriers stop offering product and the number of competitors in a market shrinks, prices rise and consumers lose.

Obamacrap does nothing to make health care, or health insurance more affordable in spite of what politicians and misinformed reporters may say.

Read More

New insurance package for tour operators includes professional indemnity

Get a Quote

Macmillan Sheikh, providers of underwriting and broking services, have just launched two new insurance schemes – specifically designed to provide cover for the cleaning industry in one case and for tour operators in the other.

In the latter case, the package will be tailored to the individual client’s needs and will include professional indemnity insurance as well as public liability, employers liability, legal expenses and financial loss cover.

According to Macmillan Sheikh, as reported on insuranceage.co.uk, what really distinguishes these two offers is their higher than standard policy limits and the generous level of commission available to brokers.

Get the professional indemnity insurance you need at at 0333 3211 403.

Read More

Risk Management and PGI

At its heart, insurance is a risk management tool. Whether that risk is loss of income, or damage to a vehicle, or the loss of one's life, insurance is a way to mitigate a risk.

One risk that business owners face is the loss of their personal assets. Say you own Acme Widgets, a small C-Corporation that's looking to expand. One financial option open to you is a line of credit, but the bank wants you to sign for it with your personal signature, not just as the President of Acme Widgets. On the one hand, you really need the money; on the other, now your own personal assets are on the line.

What to do?

Well, Asterisk Insurance may have the answer: Personal Guarantee Insurance (PGI).

What PGI does is to "cover a substantial portion of all guarantors’ net liability to a lender if the underlying business should be unable to repay its bank loan."

You can actually cover up to 70% of that risk (which makes sense: any more and you run into moral hazard). It's pretty simple: if you have this coverage, and your business fails, the carrier will cover up to 70% of any shortfall, potentially saving a substantial amount of personal assets.

The rate's determined by the amount of the loan and nature of the business, so it could be expensive. But for additional peace of mind, and the opportunity to save or expand one's business, it's a pretty cool new tool.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Bill M]

Read More

Cavalcade of Risk #132: Call for submissions

Russell at Chatswood Moneyblog hosts next week's 5th Anniversary edition. Entries are due by Monday (the 31st).

NB: We're now using this submission tool: The BC WorkAround

Once there, you'll be asked to provide:

■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post ("Remarks")

At the bottom of the form, you'll see a drop-down menu; simply select "Cavalcade of Risk" then press "Submit" and you're good to go.

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

Read More

MVNHS©: Water, water, everywhere

You know that old saying "take two aspirin and call me in the morning?"

Well, in Merry Ol' England, they're skipping the actual aspirin part, and prescribing Dihydrogen Monoxide:

"Doctors are prescribing drinking water for neglected elderly patients to stop them dying of thirst in hospital."

Apparently, some 800 (perhaps more) seniors die of dehydration in British hospitals every year. Another 300 are killed off die of malnutrition, ignored by hospital staff even as they (literally) starve to death.

It's almost as if a nationalized system of health care uses some kind of "death panel" to help keep costs down. Good thing they weren't smokers.

Read More

RIP, Chuck

Turn on the TV, check out the movies, fire up Hulu, and you'll never find "The Exciting Adventures of [your name here], Insurance Agent." Sure, there was Banacek and Longstreet, but they were insurance investigators, not agents. Truth be told, there's generally little danger (or "real life" excitement) on my side of the desk; sure, it's exciting when that big case comes through, but that hardly makes for riveting television fodder. Even Evel Kneivel had hung up his pen and rate-book before his jump across the Grand Canyon.

Sometimes, though, real life has a way of delivering a wake-up call that even the most staid of professions can be dangerous:

"A KYW Newsradio traffic reporter has died — murdered, police say, in a random attack over the weekend ... The 52-year-old from Waterford, Camden County was doing another of his jobs — selling insurance and checking on clients." According to his obituary, Charles Fricker was apparently quite the entrepreneur: DJ, radio traffic guru, and agent for the Continental Insurance Company.

A full life, cut short way too soon.

Godspeed, Charles.

Read More

Memorial Day Health Wonk Review

Health Affairs' Chris Fleming hosts this week's eclectic collection of interesting posts on health care policy. I really appreciate (and like) how it's organized: crisp and clear.

Enjoy!

Read More

Can Medicare Be Saved?

We'll leave the obvious follow-up question ("should" it be?") for another time.

The short answer is, "yes, yes it can be," but don't take just my word for it:

Read More

MVNHS©: No Smoking, Christianity

Alternate title: MVNHS© Hits Bottom, Continues Digging

Long-time readers may recall that Britain's Much Vaunted National Health System© appears quite willing to appease those who practice Islam (including forbidding "health care workers from eating at their desks during Ramadan"). Christians, on the other hand, are offered no such accommodation:

"A Christian doctor in England has been threatened with an official warning from his professional body for discussing Jesus with a patient ... Richard Scott, a doctor for 28 years, is under investigation ... and faces disciplinary action after he suggested to a 24-year-old man that he might find solace in Christianity."

Oh, the humanity!

Heaven forfend that a believer in some other Abrahamic faith should share harmless advice (and one wonders what Ezra Klein would counsel in that circumstance).

The MVNHS© authorities have "written to Scott suggesting he accept an official warning." but the good doctor is having none of that. In fact, he's fighting back against what "he believes is a politically correct trend in Britain to persecute Christians for expressing their faith in the workplace."

We wish him Godspeed in his efforts.

One hopes that Dr Scott refrained from "lighting one up" or sharing a snack while dispensing spiritual advice. As FoIB Bob D alerts us, the MVNHS© is now looking to curb care for smokers and weight-enhanced individuals:

"[MVNHS©] North Yorkshire and York are preventing certain operations for the obese and smokers because they say unhealthy lifestyles lower their chance of success ... Now the government is saying that although you've paid into the system throughout your life, unfortunately you will not be receiving treatment ... you are a second-class citizen because you smoke, drink or are obese."

Now, one may argue that there are, or should be, consequences for one's lifestyle choices. But this is the very embodiment of Death Panels. Good luck with that "stiff upper lip" thing.

Read More

Helping Neighbors

Tax blogger Kay Bell switches gears a bit, and offers this round-up of ways we can help our devastated fellow citizens in Missouri, Kansas and Minnesota.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Joe Kristan]

Read More

Ezra Klein: Still Batting .000

One of ObamaCare©'s key features is the requirement that insurers cover routine, preventive care from dollar one. Of course, this increases premiums, but the trade-off, at least according to the "pass it to see what's in it" folks, would be well worth it.

Many years ago, I had an enlightening conversation with a company rep. I posited that paying for (or at least counting towards the deductible) routine preventive care was a win-win for insurers: catching that breast cancer early meant reducing the risk of very expensive treatment later on, and insured's would have an incentive to be aware of their own health.

The rep replied with what I still consider today to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard from his ilk: "Well, you don't expect your car insurance to pay for tune-ups, do you?"

Now Bob's made this point many, many times, and I agree with it: how much more expensive would your car insurance be if it covered tune-ups, oil changes, and tire rotation?

But that's a far cry from the conclusion that a well-running car equals a safer driver.

In the event, the train wreck was rammed down our throats passed, and so carriers are required to pay for routine screenings.

Which is where Wunderkind Ezra Klein comes in:

"Robin Hanson posts some carefully conducted studies suggesting that certain cancer screenings don’t seem to have any effect on overall mortality. It’s not that they don’t work: The evidence says they catch cancers. They just don’t save lives."

From that questionable premise, Ezra concludes that "if you want to control health-care costs, you somehow need to convince, incentivize or otherwise conscript doctors into doing it for you."

Really?

In Ezra's world, "personal responsibility" is simply a non-starter: we should all abdicate our own judgment to the recommendations of our physicians.

Tell that to Jan.

What's amusing about Ezra's little epiphany is that his premise - that increased access to health care increases the cost of that health care - is so, well, passe. After all, we've been making this point for nigh on 6 years.

What took you so long, Ezzie?

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Read More

Massive increase in Professional Indemnity Insurance premiums for solicitors

IA survey of 770 solicitors’ firms, carried out by market researchers Behaviour and Attitudes on behalf of the Law Society, has revealed the dire state of affairs in the professional indemnity insurance market for solicitors.

If a massive increase over the last year of some 56% in the average premium paid sounds bad enough, the position is even worse for those firms with a poor claims record. Their premiums have increased by an average of 132%.

Moreover, the survey showed that, following the withdrawal of so many insurers from the market, two thirds of the professional indemnity cover for solicitors is now provided by just two insurers. And with one of those two, the Solicitors Mutual Defence Fund, now insolvent, the situation appears to be unsustainable.

Get the professional indemnity insurance you need at at 0333 3211 403.

Read More

Paying for Results

Wellpoint, parent of several large Blue Cross plans including Anthem, Empire and BCBSGA have announced a major change in the way they will compensate hospitals for care. Wellpoint companies operate in 14 states and cover 34 million people.

In recent years, it has raised its payments to those hospitals by an average 8% a year.
Under the new system, the company will pay increases only to hospitals that score high enough on a test based on 51 indicators of treatment quality. The indicators include whether the facility tries to prevent patients from relapsing after they leave the hospital, whether it follows a safety checklist and how satisfied the hospital’s patients say they are with their treatment.

Facilities with poor scores won’t receive a payment boost.

I believe the medical term for that is flatline.

The WellPoint formula for measuring quality of care is based 55% on health outcomes, 35% on patient-safety measures and 10% on patient satisfaction.

Real accountability. What a novel idea. Now if only taxpayers could do the same with government officials . . .

Read More

Dentists Say No To Medicaid

Dentists are refusing to treat patients with Medicaid and SCHIP due to low reimbursement rates. Patients paying cash or with private insurance don't have these same issues. Only those with "free" insurance courtesy of the taxpayer.

The LA Times reports.

children on Medicaid were 38 times more likely to be denied any appointment by dentists who were not enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program -- and were still 18 times more likely to be rejected by even those dentists who did accept Medicaid insurance.

That's a real bummer.

Why the prejudice against the publicly insured? The study authors cite a lot of potential reasons: "low fees, less patient compliance, negative attitudes toward beneficiaries, and administrative requirements being too burdensome.

All of this may well be true, but consider this. Come 2014 when Obamacrap unwraps it is expected there will be some 20 million new enrollee's in Medicaid.

Free insurance and no place to go.

Read More

ObamaWaiver© Update: Old Eyes and Hawkeyes

We've long castigated the ostensible seniors' advocacy organization for throwing its own members under the ObamaBus©. But just like Harry Reid and others, this hypocritical group, which pushed long and hard for ObamaCare© itself, has received its own ObamaWaiver©:

"Although not specifically mentioned by name in the rate review rules finalized last Thursday by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the rule that exempts Medigap insurance providers is clearly designed to benefit the largest seller of such policies and the biggest lobbyist for ObamaCare — the American Association of Retired Persons."

Bet you didn't know that AARP makes the bulk of its money not from its members (nominal) dues, but by its affiliation programs, including its line of Medigap plans.

Remember, this is the organization that's fine with Death Panels, just not the death of its own cash cow.

But of course, it's not just groups like AARP that want out from under this train wreck. Like Nevada and Maine, we can now add the home of Radar O'Reilly to the list of states that have requested their own ObamaWaiver©:

"Health insurers could avoid paying $3.4 million in rebates to customers if federal regulators allow Iowa to delay a component of health care legislation meant to curb insurance company profits and overhead."

That's the Medical Loss Ratio requirement.

"Six insurers pulled out of Iowa's individual health market last summer after [ObamaCare©] was passed ... State regulators fear that even more companies will leave."

So the idea that ObamaCare© will increase competition, choice and availability seems to be circling the proverbial drain.

Imagine that.

Read More

Billions and Billions (in taxes, natch!)

Something which cannot be stated often enough is the breadth and depth of ObamaCare©'s job-killing nature. Health insurance is a big-ticket item for many (most?) small businesses, and it's about to get worse. In just a few short years, the new ObamaTaxes© come online; these will add upwards of $90 billion in additional excise taxes on insurers.

Oh, wait: did I say "on insurers?"

I meant "on thee and me:" insurers (like all businesses) don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from their customers.

In this case, the initial ObamaTax©, set to take effect in 2014, sets the bar at $8 billion; that number increases to $14.3 billion four years later. It's actually worse than this; Sally Pipes, writing at Forbes, notes that:

"Because these new fees are not tax-deductible for insurers, each additional premium dollar raised to pay the excise tax will face 35 cents in income taxes. So the true cost of the excise tax to insurers is nearly $135 billion. They'll therefore have to jack up prices by $1.54 to generate one buck for the excise tax. And in states with income or premium taxes of their own, insurers will face an ever steeper bill."

Is there hope for change? A consortium of small business advocates thinks there is; they've put together a very useful website chronicling all the various taxes to which their members (and thus us consumers) will be subject. Called Stop The Hit, it's got a state-by-state breakdown of both the scheduled ObamaTaxes© and the percentage of small business-generated jobs.

As the site notes:

"One thing insurers and economists have agreed upon throughout the healthcare debate: new taxes on insurers inevitably means new costs passed along to customers. The group that experiences the most cost-shifting is the fully-insured market."

No kidding.

Read More

Long Term Care: Rising Tides

FoIB Holly R sent along this rather disturbing news:

"Costs of assisted-living care in Ohio are growing faster than the national average ... In Ohio, the annual cost of long-term care in an assisted-living facility is $39,900, and costs have risen 9 percent annually over the past six years. Nationally, the average cost is $39,135, with average yearly increases of 6 percent."

Some perspective's called for here, of course. For one thing, Ohio's average cost is only about 2% higher than the national. For another, this means that the average daily cost for assisted living in the Buckeye State is just shy of $110 per day. Most agents I know recommend about $150 per day for Long Term Care insurance (LTCi).

Oh, and one more thing: according to the article, the cost of nursing home care is somewhat lower in Ohio than nationally.

Still, this underscores the need to at least consider a LTCi purchase, since that close to $40,000 per year cost can quickly eat up one's life savings.

There's another reason that LTCi may make sense:

"Private long term care (LTC) insurance helps insureds with moderate disabilities stay in their homes longer and does not appear to crowd out informal caregiving."

Most seniors I've spoken with would prefer to stay in their own homes, rather than face the upheaval involved in moving and downsizing. Obviously, someone in the throes of Alzheimer's may not have that choice, but for those with less serious conditions, having the means to stay in one's home seems like a good thing.

On the other hand, the same study showed a disturbing phenomenon: "the researchers ... [identified] survey participants who believe they have LTC insurance but do not actually have it: Li and Jensen say confused consumers make typical LTC insurance penetration figures about 50% higher than they ought to be."

That's scary.

Read More

The Public Be Damned

A Tulsa, Oklahoma reader forwards this timely article

“expanding Medicaid would cost Oklahoma taxpayers 11 billion dollars in the first 10 years . . . the program’s expansion would mean 314,000 and 340,000 new Medicaid enrollees in this state . . . you are talking about four times more than we’ve ever spent on Medicaid.”

Despite the Administration’s claims that Obamacare will reduce health care costs – and cover these Oklahomans and even more millions of America’s uninsured at the same time - we all know that can’t be done. Sure we know it. We’ve always known it. Many of us hoped it could be true. Some of us pretended it could be true. But we all knew it couldn’t be true if we thought about it at all.

Similar Obamacare costs are going to hit every other state, too (although Nevada has received a statewide waiver. Why Nevada? Oh, c’mon, you know).

So the additional cost was not unexpected. This puts the media in the awkward position now, of pretending surprise in the attempt to camouflage their credulous and incompetent reporting of the debate on health care and the uninsured during 2007 – 2010.

Who exactly are the uninsured? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2006, it’s surprisingly unambiguous: “people below 2X's the federal poverty level comprised about 65% of all uninsured.”

Well then, why don’t we establish a federal medical insurance program for the poor? Oh, I forgot. There’s already a federal medical insurance program for the poor – it’s called Medicaid. And because the poor make up 65% of the uninsured, it’s clear Medicaid has failed to achieve its [sole] purpose. So then, wouldn’t it make sense just to fix Medicaid?

Not the way the federales see it.

Main reason - a lot of public attention focused on a failed federal program would have been unacceptable, just when the federales had determined to launch a new and even bigger federal program. So the remedy could not be to fix Medicaid. No, these are federales at work, and our federales don’t fix no stinkin’ programs! Just “fixing” Medicaid would have wasted this crisis of the uninsured. The remedy must therefore be a massive, grotesquely expanded, and horrifically expensive NEW federal program whose ultimate aim is . . . whatever . . . or something, just so long as it’s enabled by expanded federal powers regardless of Constitutionality and, of course, incredible new taxing and spending authority.

Besides - fixing Medicaid would require enrolling the millions of the uninsured poor into Medicaid anyway, about half of which the states fund directly. So Oklahoma and the other states (not Nevada) face much higher medical insurance costs for their indigent populations, no matter what anyone calls it – Medicaid or Obamacare. And Obamacare has the advantage of investing so much more power with the federales. This crisis was definitely not wasted.

And no one can be surprised to learn who is going to pay for it all, either.

The public be damned.

Read More

Life(less) Partners

Five months ago, we reported on the bizarre tale of Life Partners (LP), "a fast-growing company in Waco, Texas, [which] has made large fees from its life-insurance transactions."

There were a number of problems in LP's business model, not the least of which was their on-call oncologist of dubious reputation, and the apparent lack of transparency on the part of the founding "Partner."

Adding to their woes this time around is this news from BusinessWeek:

"Life Partners Holdings Inc., which buys life-insurance policies at a discount and sells shares to investors, said Friday that it could face civil charges stemming from a federal investigation into how it forecasts the insured's life expectancy."

Dun'h!

It seems safe to say that receiving notice that one's company is the target of an SEC investigation, not to mention a potential civil suit, ranks right up there with arriving at the office and finding the "60 Minutes" crew waiting patiently on the stoop.

There's little question that the concept behind LP's business is valuable: look at how many carriers now include an Accelerated Death Benefit with newly-issued policies. The problem is that companies like LP seem to be taking advantage of both the insured and the (prospective) investor. As my father used to say, "bulls make money, and bears make money, but pigs go to market."

Read More

Told Ya So!

In case you were wondering, it was never about compassion for "those left behind."

No, I'm not talking about tomorrow's planned events, but this:

"Last week, we reported on efforts in California and Florida to force life insurance companies to keep (better) track of their insureds ...

It is not, and never has been, the responsibility of a life insurer to track its insureds. If you move, then you darned well better let folks ... where you're headed."

We opined at the time that "the state does not, in fact, care about whether or not the rightful beneficiary benefits, just that the state itself gets (at least) a cut."

Bingo!

"The current probe of life insurers’ death benefits payment practices could help beneficiaries and state unclaimed property funds recoup “north of $1 billion,” Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said today." [emphasis added]

Does anyone seriously think the state cares one whit about beneficiaries? Of course not: this is simply another means of extracting unearned dollars for financially-strapped state governments. It's shameful, unjustifiable, and a waste of resources.

Not that I have any strong feelings on the subject, of course.

Read More

Trip: Interrupted?

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article the other day about risk management and vacation planning. With travel costs at an all-time high, it pays to ensure (and, perhaps, insure) that your hard-earned dollars aren't wasted.

We covered trip interruption and cancellation policies last year, and this new WSJ piece does a good job of exploring some of the "loop-holes" through which the folks who issue these policies can avoid paying out claims. They recommend "cancel for any reason" plans as the ones most likely to actually "pay off" if your trip is canceled or is cut short.

Which brings us to the other side of the visa: travel medical insurance. Many health insurance plans (and Medicare) "stop at the border." So it's important to make sure whether or not your plan will cover you on the high seas, or overseas (or in Toronto or Cancun, for that matter). One thing that most "regular" plans may lack is emergency medical evacuation coverage; these claims can mean big bucks out of your pocket. The article notes that "for less than what you pay through airlines, you can buy an independent policy with $50,000 medical and dental coverage and $250,000 or more in evacuation coverage."

While we're not necessarily recommending that much coverage, it's comforting to know that it's available. If you're planning a major (ie expensive) trip any time soon, our own Bob Vineyard may be able to help. He's set up a helpful site with plenty of options, including some for groups traveling together, exchange students, even folks going on safari. Very cool.

Read More

Indemnity Insurance problems for solicitors in Ireland becoming acute

Get a Quote

The implications of the IMF/EU bailout are only compounding the problems currently being faced by the legal profession in Ireland. As bank assets are increasingly transferred to the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) it is becoming apparent that a significant number of mortgage owners are not registered as the owners of the properties they bought.

And this comes at a time when the number of court cases being brought against solicitors on the grounds of malpractice in connection with property transactions is reaching crisis proportions. Not surprisingly, with claims running into hundreds of millions of euros, this is having enormous professional indemnity insurance implications.

Indeed, as reported in irishtimes.com, the newsletter of the Solicitors Mutual Defence Fund calls for the whole profession to take proper control of its business in order to reassure the professional indemnity insurance underwriters. A slightly worrying judgement on the profession’s past performance.

Get the professional indemnity insurance you need at at 0333 3211 403.

Read More

Breaking: First Nancy, now Harry [UPDATED]

Un-freakin'- believable:

"ENTIRE State of Nevada Scores Obamacare Waiver"

Words fail (for now).

Just two days ago, Bob noted that SanFranNan had scored 20% of the latest ObamaWaiver©s for her district. He wisely observed that "we have to pass the waivers in order to know what is in them."

The term "prescient" comes to mind:

"The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration's health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, "may lead to the destabilization of the individual market."

At issue is the new Medical Loss Ratio rules which (among other things) dictate the percentage of premiums collected that must be paid out. It appears that (current) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state just dodged a major bullet.

One is tempted to ask, of course, why he was so gung-ho for ObamaCare© in the first place, since he must have known, from a simple reading of the bill, that this was in it.

He did read the bill, right?

UPDATE: Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems that Harry, Nancy and Barry have replaced Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny in terms of largesse.

Don't believe me?

Here's 1,000 words or so:

Read More

Punishing the Good Guys

[Caution: long rant ahead]

Last week, a good friend and colleague called to ask for help on what had become a rather complicated case. His clients, a husband and wife, were about to lose their health insurance - through no fault of their own - and had asked him for help. While he dabbles in this area, he's really a (very, very good) P&C guy, and turned to me for advice.

Bill and Mary are in their sixties (he's 68, she's 61). Bill was recently (May 3rd) laid off from his long-time job, in anticipation of the company closing its doors. He'd received his COBRA election info, but was unsure of his next step. He called my friend, who then called me.

Bill's going to be okay: he can (and will) pick up a Medicare Supplement plan, as well as his Part D coverage, on the "open market."

But Mary has a problem: after a thorough pre-screen, we've determined that she's uninsurable.

You're probably thinking "okay, Henry, what's the big deal? They've got the COBRA info, she'll just glom onto that."

Would that it were so simple:

In its infinite wisdom, the CongressCritters who drafted the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act made it very clear that COBRA was a continuation of one's existing group coverage. Implicit in that definition is a major problem: if there's no group, then there's no continuation of that coverage, and so there's no insurance.

Period.

Which leaves Mary with very few, mostly sub-optimal [ed: why not just say "crappy?"] choices:

■ Open enrollment with a local HMO (with a very high premium and some major limitations)
■ Applying - and being declined - for coverage (which gets her on a state-mandated Guaranteed Issue plan)
■ A conversion plan (very expensive, verry crappy)
■ The new ObamaPool©

None of these are really great choices, but it's that last one that has me seething:

The ObamaPool© plan has decent benefits, reasonably decent rates, is Guaranteed Issue, and will cover her (numerous) pre-existing conditions.

There's just one catch:

She'll have to be uninsured for (at least) six months before she's eligible.

That's correct: she and Bill have played by the rules, staying insured even when times were tough, and she can't access the same coverage that her no-goodnik neighbor - who's never bothered to buy insurance, even though she could well afford it - is free to waltz in this afternoon and buy with basically a signature and a (smallish) check.

This is outrageous. Unconscionable. Immoral.

We are punishing people for playing by the rules, for being responsible, productive citizens, for taking personal responsibility This isn't about politics, it's about something far more important: justice.

Read More

Fresh Air PSA

The Fresh Air Fund provides free summer vacations to New York City children from low-income communities. Every year, some 10,000 kids benefit from this opportunity. In its over 130 years of service, the FAF has provided almost 2 million youngsters with access to unique programs and, of course, fresh air.

The Fund's Sara Wilson tells us that they're "in need of host families for this summer. Host families are volunteers who open their hearts and homes to children from the city to give them a Fresh Air experience that can change lives."

Sara's put together a really useful "microsite" that explains the program and how you (or someone you know) can help. Just click here to be whisked away to fresh air and a chance to help those less fortunate.

Read More

Whiplash and insurance

Well, however you look at it, the first year of the coalition government has been nothing if not controversial. This week the health noise surrounding the government has been mainly around Nick Clegg and David Cameron's reported disagreements over the future of the NHS.

While the coalition government was always going to have its 'moments' - few would have believed the galactic smiles of the first days would last - nobody knew when or where the dread schism would appear. There's no indication yet that this schism has appeared. Depsite, of course, some media headlines loudly shouting about open warfare between the once happy pair. As the article linked to points out, "policy consensus may yet occur".

On another NHS related note - Insurance Daily reports today that an incredible 1 person out of every 140 claims for whiplash injuries each year, at great cost to insurers - with the stats showing UK has more whiplash than anywhere else in Europe. Or does it? As someone from the ABI states in the article, whiplash is easy to fake or exaggerate, but difficult to diagnose. Hmm.

Read More

Alphabet Soup Update

■ First up, courtesy of our friend Joe Kristan, next year's Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution limits:

For singles, the max you can drop in will be $3,100 (up $50 from this year); for families, it's $6,250 (up $100). Remember, you need to be covered by a qualifying High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to make contributions. The 2012 minimum deductible for these plans remain at the 2011 level ($1,200 for singles, and $2,400 for families).

Some HDHP's include additional out-of-pocket requirements above the deductible (I hate these). These will increase $100 for singles and $200 for family coverage next year.

■ FlexBank's Lou Gellenbeck sent along this helpful info on how ObamaCare©'s new W-2 reporting requirements affect Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs). The key take-away is that they're "exempt from the new W-2 reporting requirements for group health plans."

But what's that really mean?

Lou explains:

"Starting in tax year 2012 ...employers that file 250 or more Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year [must] report the aggregate reportable cost of applicable employer-sponsored health insurance coverage provided on each employee's annual Form W-2...

Aggregate reportable cost does not include amounts contributed to a Health Savings Account (HSA), the amount of any employee salary reduction election to a health Flexible Spending Account (FSA), or the cost of coverage under a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). This reporting will be for informational purposes only and will not affect tax liability.

Specifically noted in the legislation is the requirement that employer contributions to a health FSA (i.e. matching contributions or where the employer seeds the health FSA with funds) must also be reported in certain situations. FlexBank's FSA clients will receive additional information on this part of the ruling in the near future under separate cover."

See why one's choice of administrator for these kinds of plans are local and accountable? Did your admin alert you to these changes?

She also reminds us that "comprehensive guidance on the W-2 reporting requirement may be found here."

Thanks, Lou!

Read More

Cavalcade of Risk #131 now up

Emily Holbrook makes her CavRisk hosting debut with this outstanding edition. It's short, sweet and right on point.

Read More

Joe K goes big time

Our good friend (and favorite TaxBlogger) Joe Kristan was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

Mazel Tov, Joe!

Read More

Chasing Profits

The New York Times' Reed Abelson is a good writer, but (as with so many in the MSM), she seems unable to distinguish between "profits" and "profit margins." What's the diff, you ask?

Here's a good example:

"ABC Widgets builds 100 widgets, and sells them for $1 each. First they have to buy the materials for about 60c, then assemble and market, for about 15c. Then they sell for $1 and give the govt 18c in taxes per widget. That means each widget costs 93c to make, leaving ABC with a 7c profit margin per widget. If they sell all 100, they make $7 in profit.

Next year, material and assembly costs a little more, so they raise the price of the widgets to $1.50. Costs end up at $1.43, which leaves a profit margin of 7c again. But widgets are popular this year, so they sell 200!

ABC Posts Record Profits of $14! Congress to investigate!"

Now, let's contrast that with Ms Abelson's intellectually vapid take:

"The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits ... The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits"

There's more, but that's the gist. The problem is that the cost of health care keeps increasing, and carriers can't go back and assess insureds (or previously insured folks) for their losses. They have to price for what may come, and there's no sign that the rising cost of health care delivery will abate any time soon (or at all).

Still, one is tempted to say "that's all well and good, Henry, but these profiteers are making obscene amounts of money on the backs of their insureds."

Uh-hunh.

Let's go back to the widgets: how much money should ABC be allowed to make? Remember, ABC provides employment (and thus an income) to those who make the product. Their employees count on those paychecks; if ABC doesn't make enough money to stay in business, well...

So they need to make a profit, and they have to decide the scope of that profit. So, another question: is 5% enough? 10? How much would you be willing to settle for?

It's an important question because this chart, which our own Mike Feehan graciously sent along, shows exactly what other related players in the health care delivery and financing consider "reasonable:"

[Click graphic to embiggen]

Is 4.4% a "reasonable" return on investment? In this economy, perhaps so (take a look at your 401 201k); but it's a fraction of that claimed by some others. As an aside: how long do you think doctors will settle for sub-2% returns? And what does that bode for future availability of health care?

Now, if only the MSM would take a remedial econ class.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

Read More

Saving Medicare

Over the years, we've chronicled the precarious path on which the 45 year old program finds itself. The $64,000 Question is whether or not it's too late to change its course.

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity's Dan Mitchell lays out the stakes, and the possibilities:



[Hat Tip: RedState]

Read More

I Left My Heart . . .

Tony Bennett left his heart in San Francisco. Politicians leave Obamacrap waivers.

Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree noted something curious about the latest round of waivers.

Of the 221 new waivers a high percentage were in Ca-lee-forn-ya.

Specifically, San Francisco.

The waivers went to hotels, restaurants and of course unions.

But a curious pattern seemed to evolve. According to Dupree:

As for the California angle on this latest batch of waivers, at times when I was trying to identify all of the groups that won a waiver, I almost thought I was doing research on a trip to the San Francisco Bay Area.

It starts with the Blue & Gold Fleet, which takes people on cruises around San Francisco Bay. There was Cafe Mason, a restaurant in the Civic Center part of town.

Still moving alphabetically, there was Campton Place, a luxury hotel in San Francisco; Compwest Insurance, a workers' compensation insurance provider not far from The Embarcadero; Emporio Rulli, a restaurant on Chestnut Street; there's even a listing for "Fillmore Street Restaurant" as well.

But I'm not done.

There's the Franciscan Restaurant which gives you "Seafood Dining in the heart of Fishermans Wharf" and even a couple of places to stay like Hotel Fusion and Hotel Nikkio.

Almost like taking a tour of popular spots for out of towners . . . or politicians.

If you need a place to stay, there's Meridian Management Group, a company that in the San Francisco Bay Area that deals with apartment and commercial property rentals.

If you need to find a place to buy things, there's Moor & South/Pier Management, which runs a 45 acre complex in San Francisco called PIER 39 with all kinds of specialty shops and restaurants.

Back to food, there's North Beach Pizza, and if you need to find things, there is the travel guide to the city called "Only in San Francisco."

Does this seem like a trend yet?

Hmmmmmmm . . .

Given that San Francisco is a popular tourist spot, maybe this waiver list is just a coincidence. Or maybe not.

This closing comment raises some eyebrows.

If I had the time, I would dig into all 1,372 of these waivers and see how many of them go to California, which delivered over 30 votes for the Obama Health law.

It would make for an interesting story, especially it seems in San Francisco, which is the hometown of former Speaker and now House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Seems we have to pass the waivers in order to know what is in them.

Read More

Grand Rounds is up

The venerable weekly collection of interesting medblog posts is hosted this week at the Prepared Patient blog.

Read More

Indemnity Insurance problems for solicitors in Ireland becoming acute

The implications of the IMF/EU bailout are only compounding the problems currently being faced by the legal profession in Ireland. As bank assets are increasingly transferred to the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) it is becoming apparent that a significant number of mortgage owners are not registered as the owners of the properties they bought.

And this comes at a time when the number of court cases being brought against solicitors on the grounds of malpractice in connection with property transactions is reaching crisis proportions. Not surprisingly, with claims running into hundreds of millions of euros, this is having enormous professional indemnity insurance implications.

Indeed, as reported in irishtimes.com, the newsletter of the Solicitors Mutual Defence Fund calls for the whole profession to take proper control of its business in order to reassure the professional indemnity insurance underwriters. A slightly worrying judgement on the profession’s past performance.

Get the professional indemnity insurance you need at at 0333 3211 403.

Read More

It's (Oddball) Claim Time!

We've reported before on some unusual insurance policies, but here's something different: unusual insurance claims. FoIB David Law passes along this infographic of "Dodgy Insurance Claims:"


[Click here for full graphic]

Naturally, something like this begs for vetting, so I first went to snopes for debunking. After poking around for a bit, and finding no related items, I was pretty well convinced that the list was legit. But I'm a belt-AND-suspenders kinda guy, so I grabbed a few of the items and Googled them. Sure enough, I found supporting cites for enough to satisfy even my cynical view.

Thanks, David!

Read More