Berkeley Insurance & Financial Services, LLC. -We Don't Promise, We Deliver.

State funds to curb teen smoking cut 28%

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:42:00 +0000

Indiana is slashing the amount of money it spends on tobacco prevention by 28 percent this fiscal year, according to a new national report. That ranks it among the bottom half of states when it comes to funding programs designed to keep children from picking up smoking as a habit and helping other smokers quit.

The report was released this week by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and several other organizations. The study found that many states were in similar shape: nationwide, funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs was cut more than 15 percent. Indiana ranks 29th among all states in funding such programs – down from 28th in a similar report last year, the report said. The Hoosier State also fell far short of the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention’s recommended expenditure on such programs.

Indiana, which has the second-highest smoking rate among adults, according to the CDC, currently spends $11.8 million on smoking prevention and cessation programs, down from $16 million last year. The CDC recommends that Indiana spend upward of $78.8 million on prevention programs.

“I think the cut came because of the economic condition we have right now,” said Melissa Lewis, director of special projects with the Indiana Academy of Family Physicians, who spoke for the Indiana Tobacco Prevention & Cessation agency.

And the cuts are being felt locally. Anti-tobacco agencies have had to deal with fewer grants to give out to local organizations and schools for tobacco education, forgo putting together smoking cessation classes for the public and in some cases cut salaries.

“We need to help our state legislators understand that when cutting those funds, it has a direct impact on the population they serve,” said Dick Conklin, executive director of Tobacco Free Allen County, a government agency.

Conklin said that last year his agency had roughly $300,000 in grant money and other funds to spend on smoking prevention and cessation. That total has dropped to about $180,000, he said, meaning fewer classes and less advertising.

Dave Bell, the executive director of Tobacco-Free LaGrange County, is in a similar situation.

With his budget of $50,000 over the next two years, he cut his work hours from full time to two-thirds time. He can give smoking cessation classes to companies that have eliminated smoking on work property for employees, but he no longer has the funds for public classes. Also in danger was an essay contest that Bell’s agency has for high school students to write about their experience with tobacco. But a sponsor came up with $950 to fund the contest, which includes cash awards for the winners.

“When you cut more than the fat, you cut into the bone,” Bell said.

Indiana is one of 46 states that receive money every year as part a 1998 settlement of a lawsuit against tobacco companies. That settlement, coupled with the taxes from the sale of tobacco products, amounts to $622 million in revenue this fiscal year. Only 1.9 percent will go to prevent smoking, according to the national report.

In each of the past four years, Indiana had spent more than 2 percent of revenue on programs to prevent smoking, according to data compiled by Tobacco-Free Kids.

State legislators hash out where the tobacco money goes as part of the state budget, according to Tim Filler, the grass-roots committee chairman for the Indiana Campaign for Smokefree Air, a coalition of several organizations looking to tighten smoking bans in the state.

Portions of that money go to other health-related issues, not all of which are caused by smoking, Filler said. Mental health, prescription drugs, child health insurance, aging and AIDS programs are all getting a chunk of that money this year, Filler said.

A few programs seemingly unrelated to health are also getting money, like the Rural Economic Fund, according to Filler.

“We don’t want to be seen as competing with those programs,” Filler said. “But hopefully legislators will see (smoking prevention programs) are not only a health savings in the long run, but also an investment that can save money in the long term.”

The Tobacco-Free Kids report warns that it’s a dangerous time to cut such funding as a steady decline of adult smokers nationwide over the years has now stalled.

Jerri Lerch, executive director of the Allen County Drug and Alcohol Consortium, used a report by the Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University released in September to show that Allen County-area teenagers are smoking less on a monthly and daily basis compared with their peers in the state, and in some cases rate about the same as teenagers nationwide.

But Conklin believes that cutting prevention programs gives tobacco companies a chance to rein in younger smokers as more and more products are targeted to that age group. Tobacco companies spend $426.2 million a year to market products in Indiana, according to the Tobacco-Free Kids report.

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS -- AND COUNTING.

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:07:00 +0000

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC's policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

As of Thursday, the RNC’s plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.

The RNC moved quickly Thursday to assuage any concerns its members might have.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay writes to the 168 committeemen and committeewomen across the country that Steele "takes this issue very seriously."

He writes that the RNC has been evaluating its health insurance policy and will continue to do so.

Leading up to passage of the House health care reform bill last week, 176 House Republicans joined 64 Democrats in voting for the so-called Stupak amendment, a measure that prohibits federal funds from being used to buy health insurance that covers elective abortions.

A spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee – the campaign arm for the House Republicans – said it does not include coverage for elective abortions in its employee insurance policy.

“The policy does not cover abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger,” the NRCC spokeswoman said.

According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

But rank-and-file Republicans said Thursday before the change was announced that the policy should – and would – be changed.

“We were not aware of this, obviously, and this will, of course, be fixed,” said James Bopp Jr., a Republican National Committeeman from Indiana. “I think Chairman Steele will see to it that that’s the case.”

Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia conservative, said “they need to drop that clause” from the policy or find a new one.

“From a philosophical standpoint, it’s inconsistent,” Kingston said. “It makes me think someone isn’t scrutinizing the purchases.”

Cigna spokesman Chris Curran declined to discuss the specifics of the RNC’s plan, saying it’s against company policy to reveal even the identities of its insured. But he said that Cigna’s products “are designed to meet the requirements of our individual employer clients. Employer clients are informed of the services covered and it is their choice to decide which benefits meet their needs.”

There is no indication that any RNC employee used the abortion coverage, but Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said it’s “no surprise” that the RNC had been offering it.

“It’s an employer that wants to provide standard health benefits for its employees,” she said. “That’s why the Stupak amendment goes too far in taking away benefits that women have today, and that’s why women won’t allow the Stupak amendment to become law.”

The Stupak amendment, named for sponsor Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), was adopted by the House before it passed the health care bill on Saturday night. It prohibits a government-backed health care plan from offering abortion services and bans the use of federal subsidies for individuals to buy into health care plans that provide abortion coverage.

Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona was the only House Republican who did not vote in favor of the amendment. He voted “present.”

While 64 Democrats voted for the amendment, the majority did not – and the Democratic Party’s 2008 platform says the party “unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.” The Democratic National Committee provides abortion coverage to its employees, the committee said.

DWC’s Amended Health Care Organization Regulations Approved By Office of Administrative Law

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:23:00 +0000

OAKLAND, CA – The Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) has amended its regulations on health care organizations (HCOs) as another part of its 12-point plan to control medical costs in California ’s workers’ compensation system. The 12-point plan includes regulations recently enacted, regulations underway, and a set of proposals to be implemented in 2010. The revisions to the HCO regulations make HCOs more competitive with medical provider networks, providing a viable network option for workers’ compensation care. Studies have shown that network care is associated with lower costs for employers and better return to work outcomes for injured workers.

The final HCO regulations were filed with the secretary of state on Nov. 4, 2009 and become effective Jan. 1, 2010. The revised regulations reduce HCO fees and eliminate duplicative HCO reporting requirements.

The regulations, found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, sections 9771 through 9779.9, are authorized by Labor Code sections 133, 4600.3, 4600.5, 4600.7, 4603.5, and 5307.3.

The amendments include:

The application for certification of an entity not licensed under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act will be reduced from $20,000 to $2,500.
The application for certification of an entity licensed under the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act will be reduced from $10,000 to $1,000.
The recertification fee will be reduced from $10,000 to $1,000.
The annual assessment fee will be reduced from $1.00 per enrollee to $250.00 for 0 to 1000 enrollees, $350 for 1001 to 5000 enrollees, and $500 for 5001 or more enrollees.
The loan repayment surcharge in section 9779.5(a)(2) will be removed as the repayment period has now ended.
The late payment fee in section 9779 will be repealed.
Information collected by the Workers’ Compensation Information System (WCIS) will not be required to be resubmitted to DWC by HCOs.

The approved regulations, as filed with the secretary of state, can be found on the DWC Web site.

The final statement of reasons for the rulemaking, a summary of public comments made during the rulemaking, and the division’s responses to those comments are also available on the DWC Web site.

Fraud Isnt A Small Matter for Small Businesses

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:52:00 +0000

Found @

A small business in Waco suffered four workers’ compensation claims in one year. The claims were so costly that the owner feared for her business. Desperate, she spied on her injured employees outside their chiropractor’s office to see if they were committing workers’ compensation fraud.

Did she over-react? Small business owners watching their bottom lines would probably say “no.” Every year, workers’ compensation fraud costs the system millions of dollars. Those costs trickle down to all employers in the form of higher premiums.

Fortunately, employers don’t have to lurk in dark alleys with a camcorder to keep their businesses from becoming victims of workers’ compensation fraud. They can learn to identify fraud and take a proactive approach to fighting it.

What Is Workers' Compensation Fraud

Claimant fraud is the most talked about kind of fraud. It is also the type that employers are in the best position to help uncover. Claimant fraud happens when employees knowingly lie to collect benefits. They may claim an injury was work-related when it wasn’t, exaggerate an injury, or secretly continue working while collecting benefits.

What Workers' Compensation Fraud Is Not

Collecting benefits for a work-related injury is not fraud. Many employers feel that the longer an employee stays off work and collects benefits, the more likely the claim is fraudulent. Under state law, injured employees don’t have to get back on the job until the doctor releases them to work.

Red Flags for Workers' Compensation Fraud

There is no sure-fire way to identify fraud without proof, but there are red flags. Employers should call their carriers immediately if they identify two or more of these flags.

Disgruntled employee. The employee has a motive to fabricate the claim. Perhaps he or she was denied vacation time, demoted or fired.

Employee is hard to contact. The employee may be working another job while collecting benefits. This practice, called “double-dipping,” constitutes fraud.

New employee. Statistically, the newer the employee is, the more likely the claim is fraudulent, especially if other red flags appear.

No witnesses. Make note of alleged accidents with no witnesses, especially if the employee’s duties rarely call for him or her to work alone.

Varying accounts of accident. The injured worker may describe the accident differently to the employer and the doctor, or witnesses’ accounts may differ from the injured worker’s account.

Accidents on Fridays or Mondays. Accidents that occur on Fridays or Mondays should raise suspicion, especially if other red flags appear.

Be proactive

It is easier to prevent workers compensation fraud than it is to prove it. Employers should make sure new hires have the skills and the character they want in their employees. A sound hiring policy is the best place to start.Hire wisely. Conduct background checks on applicants, and verify references.

Focus on safety. Making the workplace safer reduces the chance of accidents and the opportunity for someone to fake an injury.

Develop a return-to-work policy. Tell job candidates that if they get injured on the job, the company will work with the doctor to help them return to work as soon as medically reasonable.

Educate, don’t threaten. Explain that workers compensation fraud hurts everyone, not just the insurance carrier. Let employees know that fraudulent claims can force employers to decrease benefits, lay off employees, or go out of business.

Adopt a zero-tolerance policy. Make it clear that fraud can carry serious consequences, including termination and prosecution.

Stay in touch. Keep regular contact with employees who are off work due to an injury. Document each contact or attempted contact. Injured workers who are difficult to contact or who are belligerent may be committing workers compensation fraud.

Historic Healthcare Overhaul Passes House!!

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:28:00 +0000

L.A TIMES

Reporting from Washington - The House of Representatives on Saturday approved the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare 44 years ago, giving a boost to President Obama's campaign to guarantee health coverage to almost all Americans.

The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220 to 215, with a single Republican vote, capping a contentious daylong debate that underscored the ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare.

The narrow Democratic victory underscored the difficult road ahead as the issue moves on to the Senate. But it also meant that the party had reached a historic landmark: It has been trying since the Depression to win a vote to extend the government's social safety net to include healthcare.

The House plan would cover an additional 36 million people by 2019, leaving 4% of the nation without coverage, compared with the estimated 17% who do not have insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"For generations, the American people have called for affordable, quality healthcare for their families. Today, the call will be answered," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who rallied her members behind the legislation after weeks of cajoling and deal-making.

The Democratic side of the House cheered loudly when the vote count reached 218, a majority. Like a crowd waiting for the final gun at a football game, they counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and roared their approval when Pelosi went to the speaker's chair, grabbed the gavel and declared, "The bill is passed."

President Obama hailed the vote in a statement from Camp David, saying: "Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."

Republicans, who have fought Obama's healthcare campaign for most of the year, charged Democrats with pushing the nation toward government-run healthcare and threatening to bankrupt the treasury at a time when the deficit is skyrocketing.

"People have a grave concern about what Washington is doing to them, not for them," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, said Saturday, citing last week's GOP electoral victories in Virginia and New Jersey.

Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was the only Republican to cross the aisle and vote for the bill. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against it.

The legislation -- which includes more than $1 trillion in new healthcare spending over the next decade while also reducing the deficit by an estimated $106 billion -- will ultimately have to be reconciled with the Senate bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is working to unite his members in time to hold a vote on the Senate bill before Christmas.

With the unemployment rate continuing to rise and the public increasingly jittery about Obama's healthcare campaign, Democrats are racing to push through an overhaul before what many see as a historic opportunity slips away.

Pelosi had hoped to get a bill through the House sooner than November. But she and her lieutenants had to spend months hammering out a series of difficult compromises to satisfy the liberal and conservative wings of the party.

New requirements on businesses and insurance companies have alienated major industry groups, many of which actively fought the House bill, charging that it would actually make healthcare less affordable.

"The healthcare reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives fails the crucial test of reducing the soaring cost of health coverage for businesses or individuals," U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President Bruce Josten said after the vote.

But even as opposition to the bill stiffened, Democratic leaders managed to defuse major disagreements over the shape of a new government insurance plan and the scope of new income taxes on wealthy Americans.

They picked up major endorsements from AARP and the American Medical Assn., which joined a collection of leading consumer and patient groups and labor unions that have backed the healthcare campaign all year.

And facing the possible collapse of the legislation late Friday night, Democratic leaders brokered a deal to settle a debate within party ranks over abortion.

Under pressure from a group of socially conservative Democrats and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pelosi and other lawmakers who favor abortion rights were forced to accept a last-minute compromise that placed tight restrictions on federal funding for abortion services.

The amendment was added to the bill Saturday by a coalition of 240 Republicans and conservative Democrats; 194 Democrats voted against the amendment.

The move outraged many liberals. But in the end, just enough rallied behind the bill after a furious several days of lobbying by party leaders, including the president.

"There comes a time [when] men must act according to the dictates of their conscience and not according to political expediency," Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said on the House floor. "We have a moral obligation to lead this nation into a new era where healthcare is a right and not a privilege."

Obama, too, called on lawmakers to seize the moment, reminding them during a midday visit to Capitol Hill of the party's successful fights to create Social Security and Medicare.

"If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done any time soon," the president said at a closed-door meeting, according to a senior Democratic aide who was in the room.

The more than 2,000-page legislation is designed to largely preserve the employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get insurance through work. But the bill would also dramatically expand federal regulation of healthcare and provide more than $1 trillion in new aid to poor and middle-class citizens.

Federal law would for the first time require insurance companies to cover all Americans, regardless of their health status, and would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people who become sick.

Individuals would be required to buy insurance. And large employers would have to provide employees with health benefits or face a penalty.

The bill would open the nation's 44-year-old Medicaid insurance program for the poor to all Americans making less than 150% of the federal poverty line -- $16,245 for an individual or $33,075 for a family of four.

The government would also create new insurance marketplaces for millions of Americans who do not get coverage through work.

Commercial insurers, as well as the government, would offer plans in these marketplaces, or exchanges, and be required to provide a minimum set of benefits, including mental health services, maternity care and preventive care.

The most expensive feature is a commitment by the federal government to provide nearly $600 billion in subsidies over the next decade to help millions of low- and moderate-income Americans buy insurance in an exchange.

The bill is also designed to give relief to small businesses, providing about $25 billion in tax subsidies to help them offset the cost of offering their employees health benefits.

And the legislation would make prescriptions more affordable by closing the Medicare drug coverage gap, known as the "doughnut hole."

The major expansion in federal assistance to tens of millions of Americans is not without a cost.

To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a 5.4% surtax on individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples that make more than $1 million.

The bill would also cut more than $400 billion from Medicare payments to hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies that provide Medicare Advantage plans, a provision that proponents hope will ultimately help make the system more efficient.

Republicans contend that many seniors will lose benefits, and they more broadly attacked the bill as a costly government invasion of the medical system.

Changes Made!

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:30:00 +0000

Lots of new stuff to look around on, more news and interesting things about us.

Thanks!

Should Health Insurance Cover Medical Marijuana?

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:41:00 +0000

On Monday, news reports offered the latest piece of evidence that the country is moving toward greater acceptable of medical marijuana use: The federal government sent guidelines instructing prosecutors not to focus on prosecuting state-sanctioned medical marijuana users and suppliers.

Fourteen states now allow at least some medical marijuana usage; Monday’s news, as Andrew Cohen notes, means that “tens of thousands of Americans now are free from federal persecution and prosecution for conduct that is completely legal in their own states.” In addition, a new poll finds that 44 percent of Americans now favor outright marijuana legalization, marking a new high.

With that said, it seems reasonable to wonder whether medical marijuana is – or will ever be – covered through health insurance plans, like a typical prescription drug.

First, consider the present: Susan Pisano of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group that represents nearly 1,300 companies, told Hotsheet the group does not “know of any coverage for medical marijuana among our member companies.”

Medical Marijuana Arrest Guidelines Eased
L.A. Prosecutor Vows to Target Pot Shops
Andrew Cohen: New Pot Policy Is Not Yet a Turning Point

That comports with the opinion of Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project, who said patients at the moment have no choice but to pay “cold, hard cash” for medical marijuana.

The reason that medical marijuana is not covered, both Pisano and Mirken said, is that it is not approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The main issue here is the question of FDA approval that all drugs need to go through,” said Pisano. Lack of FDA approval means no coverage either by private insurers or through any public plan to be drafted in Congress.

So what, then, are the prospects that medical marijuana will get FDA approval? In the short term, at least, they’re pretty slim. The fact that marijuana remains a controlled substance presents one hurdle to approval; another, perhaps more significant one is that it isn’t a synthesized drug – that is, its component parts are not crafted by drug companies.

As a result, it’s hard to say exactly what’s in marijuana – and thus hard for the FDA to assess it.

There is an FDA approved drug that contains THC, the primary psychoactive element of the cannabis plant. It’s called Marinol, and it was approved way back in 1985. But Marinol lacks many of the not-yet-fully-understood components that come with traditional marijuana, and thus is far-more FDA friendly. (CBSNews.com explored the debate over Marinol in August in this story: “Does the Pot Pill Work?”)

And those aren’t the only issues complicating matters for medical marijuana: There is also the question of the size of doses. At the moment, marijuana comes in a range of potencies and quantities that would have to be standardized for the drug to meet FDA guidelines.

The FDA’s Karen Riley told Hotsheet that the organization does not discuss whether specific drugs are being considered for approval. But since marijuana lacks clear components or standardized doses – and since it is not even clear who might submit it for consideration – it seems extremely unlikely that medical marijuana is going through the process.

For now, then, medical marijuana users shouldn’t get their hopes up that they’ll soon see the drug partially paid for by their insurance company. Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project said there has been little agitation to get medical marijuana covered, though he predicted that advocates will eventually take up the cause.

“There hasn’t been anything substantial yet,” he said. “Right now we’re still focused on the legal issues.”

Allianz tops forecasts as life insurer's profit surges

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:35:00 +0000

The group's latest result followed a loss of 2.02 billion euros a year earlier. Excluding losses from its now-sold Dresdner Bank business, Allianz (DE:ALV 83.05, +3.65, +4.60%)made a profit of 545 million euros a year earlier.

The group said operating profit for the quarter rose 23% to 1.93 billion euros and beat the 1.84 billion euro consensus forecast.

The growth was driven by an almost four-fold increase in profit at its life and health-insurance unit, which benefited from stronger investment returns and strong demand.

A near doubling of profit in the financial services business also contributed to the growth. Allianz said the unit's performance was driven by its asset-management business, which includes Pimco, manager of the world's largest bond fund.

Total third-party funds under management have risen by around 25% since the start of the year to 878 billion euros as markets recovered and the group's funds benefited from 61 billion euros of net inflows.

Strength in life insurance and asset management was partly offset by a decline in profitability in the firm's property and casualty-insurance business where the group was hit by an unusually high number of weather-related claims.

Shares in Allianz rose 4.2% in Frankfurt, outpacing solid gains for the main German index. Also see Europe Markets.

Solvency improves

Allianz didn't give any earnings guidance, but Chief Financial Officer Oliver Baete said the result "shows that Allianz has a sound platform for delivering solid earnings even in the 'new normal' of a challenging market environment with structurally lower returns."

The group said its solvency ratio -- a measure of balance-sheet reserves against the required minimum margin -- improved to 164% from 159% at the end of June, including 1.4 billion euros accrued over the first nine months of the year to pay dividends.

Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analyst William Hawkins said the dividend accrual is worth around 3.1 euros a share. Hawkins said he's happy with his 3.9 euros dividend forecast for the year, but added that consensus dividend expectations may now rise.

He added that the combined ratio -- a measure of insurance payouts against dividends received -- was 96.9%, beating KBW's expectations and putting Allianz's target for the year of a combined ratio below 98% within reach. A ratio of over 100% indicates an insurer paid out more in claims than it received in premiums.

Analysts at Bank of America's Merrill Lynch unit said that despite the decline in the property and casualty business, the non-life side showed some improvements from earlier in the year.

The Republician Health Insurance Proposal

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:17:00 +0000

So....does it actually tackle the question of covering the 40 million or so people without access to insurance? No, it does not. It could insure an extra 3 million tops. Vast numbers of people would be shut out of access to insurance because they just cannot afford it. The GOP's response to this is: we cannot afford to help right now. Which is honest enough. But it doesn't exactly counter the fact that, according to the same CBO, the Democrats bill would save $104 billion off the deficit in the same time period. So, if affordability is what's at stake, why not back the Dems?

n many ways, it's helpful and clarifying. The biggest news, it seems to me, is that the CBO judges medical malpractice reform to be capable of saving $41 billion over ten years - not exactly a fiscal life-saver but a measurable idea to control costs a little better. I see no reason why it should not be in the final bill. The bill also claims to prevent insurance company discrimination against pre-existing conditions, and sets up high-risk insurance pools. The result would be around a 3 percent reduction in premiums for most people in big company plans. It will cut close to $70 billion off the deficit in the next ten years.

But that means that the flipside to this new endeavor must be a serious and persistent attempt to tackle the fiscal crisis after health insurance passes. If Obama wants to reassure independents that he is not another borrow-and-spend president, he will have to pivot off health insurance to steep entitlement and defense budget reform.

he bill would permit small businesses to avoid state insurance mandates by buying coverage through association health plans, and it would permit an individual who lives in one state to buy health coverage from an insurer based and regulated in another state.

A medical malpractice provision would cap noneconomic and punitive damages and change the way liability is allocated.

If the amendment were implemented as written, it would increase spending by a total of $61 billion from 2010 to 2019, raise $52 billion in new revenue related to coverage provisions, reduce direct government spending by $49 billion, and increase tax revenue by $27 billion, CBO analysts estimate.

Don't let insurance companies scuttle health care reform

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:15:00 +0000

By RICHARD BUTELA @ http://www.newsharold.com

SANTA ROSA BEACH
Why are our health care costs so high in comparison to other developed countries? There are many reasons. One is the obscenely profitable and inefficient health insurance industry. The health care industry adds $400 billion of excessive administrative and marketing costs a year to the cost of our health care.

It should be of no surprise that this lucrative profit-making industry is desperately trying to defeat the more affordable public health insurance option and health care reform.

These health insurance companies are putting their outrageous profits to work in a billion-dollar campaign to pull the plug on better health care for all Americans.

We are now being subjected to an overwhelming surge of lobbying, a guerrilla warfare-type disinformation campaign, saturation advertising, corporate-funded fixed pseudo-studies and corporate-financed fake grassroots protests (referred to as “Astroturf movements”).

Big health care corporations’ advertisements are a major source of profits, particularly for the radio and television industry. So it is disappointingly predictable that many TV and radio news media are distorting their reporting against any plan that may cut off this source of super-sized profit. It is more blatantly obvious on some radio pundit shout shows and TV cable news sources than others.

The USA is the only developed nation in the world not to provide health care to all its citizens. We have the highest rate of infant mortality and bankruptcies due to medical costs. What makes this even more outrageous is that our cost per citizen is actually higher than countries that cover all their citizens.

According to a report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, more than 18,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance. The fact that 45 million Americans lack medical insurance actually increases the costs for the rest of us. Someone has to cover the losses to hospitals from the uninsured that can’t afford to pay their medical bills.

Also, even those who are insured are just one serious illness away from financial ruin. Many insurance policies do not cover all the costs or insurance companies might find a loophole to deny benefits.

Some members of Congress have been manipulated and pressured by these powerful corporate interests. We Americans need to take back our hijacked political and economic system and support those in Congress who have the courage to stand up to big corporate influence.

We are currently suffering an economic near-depression because of big corporate Wall Street greed. Let’s not allow big greedy corporations to hurt us again by killing an opportunity to obtain more affordable health care for all Americans.

Inadequate insurance ups childhood deaths

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:28:00 +0000

The researchers reckon that inadequate insurance delays primary and preventive care, which significantly increases the risk of mortality.

They checked the death records of 23 million children hospitalized from 37 states from 1988 to 2005. After taking into account factors like age, gender, race, and Income, the researchers found that Health insurance has a dramatic impact on health outcomes of children.

David C. Chang, co-director of the pediatric surgery at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of the study stated, “If you take two kids from the same demographic background — the same race, same gender, same neighborhood income level and same number of co-morbidities or other illnesses — the kid without insurance is 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than the kid in the bed right next to him or her who is insured.”

Impact of insurance on health outcomes
Though the study does not prove that being uninsured boosts a child’s mortality risk, it hints at a strong correlation between the two.

An increase in death rate of uninsured kids may be because they were hospitalized in an advanced stage of the disease.

The researchers noted that those lacking basic insurance spent less than a day when they died in hospital as opposed to the insured children who spent a day.

Lead investigator Fizan Abdullah, M.D., Ph.D., pediatric surgeon at John Hopkins Children’s Center said, “The children who were uninsured literally died before the hospital could provide them more care.”

Number of fatalities may be higher
The researchers state that the number of casualties may be much higher than 17,000 since the study only focused on the fatalities in hospital.

It did not reflect on deaths after discharge nor did it take into account children who died without ever being hospitalized.

Chang stated, "Can we say with absolute certainty that 17,000 children would have been saved if they had health insurance? Of course not! The point here is that a substantial number of children may be saved by health coverage."

He added, "From a scientific perspective, we are confident in our finding that thousands of children likely did die because they lacked insurance or because of factors directly related to lack of insurance."

Findings cause for concern
The researchers feel the study is an eye opener. They want the public and policy makers to take note of the fact that while the nation is embroiled in a debate of health reforms, nearly 7 million children in the United States lack adequate insurance.

Dr Peter Pronovost, director of Critical Care Medicine at Johns Hopkins and medical director of the Center for Innovations in Quality Patient Care says, “Thousands of children die needlessly each year because we lack a health system that provides them health insurance.

“In a country as wealthy as ours, the need to provide health insurance to the millions of children who lack it is a moral, not an economic issue," he added.

The research is published in the Journal of Public Health.

The researchers reckon that inadequate insurance delays primary and preventive care, which significantly increases the risk of mortality.

They checked the death records of 23 million children hospitalized from 37 states from 1988 to 2005. After taking into account factors like age, gender, race, and income, the researchers found that health insurancehas a dramatic impact on health outcomes of children.

Impact of insurance on health outcomes
Though the study does not prove that being uninsured boosts a child’s mortality risk, it hints at a strong correlation between the two.

An increase in death rate of uninsured kids may be because they were hospitalized in an advanced stage of the disease.

The researchers noted that those lacking basic insurance spent less than a day when they died in hospital as opposed to the insured children who spent a day.

Number of fatalities may be higher
The researchers state that the number of casualties may be much higher than 17,000 since the study only focused on the fatalities in hospital.

It did not reflect on deaths after discharge nor did it take into account children who died without ever being hospitalized.

“In a country as wealthy as ours, the need to provide health insurance to the millions of children who lack it is a moral, not an economic issue," he added.

The research is published in the Journal of Public Health.

Reid's bold push for public option insurance

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:20:00 +0000

As promised, Harry Reid promoted a public option insurance plan Monday afternoon, and quickly got an atta-boy from President Barack Obama.

The announcement was a small but significant step toward potentially providing Americans with a health insurance option rather than relying on the greedy private insurers.

The Senate majority leader said his idea is to offer a public option that would allow states to opt out.

"I think it's the fairest way to go," Reid said.

After Reid's announcement, White House Press SecretaryRobert Gibbs praised the progress.

"While much work remains, the president is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He's also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition."

Now Reid and his idea will run straight into the buzz saw of opposition from private health insurers, the ones who have been jacking up rates consistently on millions of Americans for many years.

The public option must remain on the table to provide some competition for those private insurers.

How an Insurance Mandate Could Leave Many Worse Off

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:24:00 +0000

NY Times- by Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University.

AMERICANS seem to like the idea of broadening health insurance coverage, but they may not want to be forced to buy it. With health care costs high and rising, such government mandates would make many people worse off.

The proposals now before Congress would require just about everyone to buy health insurance or to get it through their employers — which would generally result in lower wages. In other words, millions of people would be compelled to spend lots oAMERICANS seem to like the idea of broadening health insurance coverage, but they may not want to be forced to buy it. With health care costs high and rising, such government mandates would make many people worse off.

The proposals now before Congress would require just about everyone to buy health insurance or to get it through their employers — which would generally result in lower wages. In other words, millions of people would be compelled to spend lots of money on something they previously did not want, at least not at prevailing prices.

Estimates of this burden vary, but for a family of four it could range up to $14,000 a year over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Right now, many Americans take the gamble of going without insurance, just as many of us take our chances with how much we drive or how little we exercise.

The paradox is this: Reform advocates start with anecdotes about the underprivileged who are uninsured, then turn around and propose something that would hurt at least some members of that group.

To ease the burdens of the insurance mandate, the reform proposals call for varying levels of subsidy. In some versions, such as the current Senate bill, subsidies are handed out to families with incomes as high as $88,000 a year. How long will it be before just about everyone wants further assistance, and this new form of entitlement spending spins out of control? It’s possible to lower insurance subsidies, but then the insurance mandate would impose a bigger burden on the people we are trying to help.

A subtler problem is what economists call “implicit marginal tax rates.”

The fiscal reality is that not all income groups can receive equal subsidies; as a family earns more, its subsidy would probably decrease, eventually falling to zero. But then we are taking money away from the poor as they climb into higher income categories. This is a disincentive to earn more, and the strength of the disincentive increases with our initial generosity. For many people, the health insurance aid would phase out when food stamps, housing vouchers and the earned income tax credit also end and the personal income tax kicks in.

This structure of incentives would likely discourage many parents from earning a better life for their children. Congress could tweak the subsidies so they don’t phase out so quickly, but then we’re back to very high fiscal costs and subsidies for many families in the higher income classes.

Defenders of a broad health insurance mandate argue that it will lower average costs in the health care market. The claim is that many of the uninsured are young, healthy or both, and that bringing them into the insurance pool might lower average premiums by spreading risk across low-cost groups. Yet Massachusetts has had a health insurance mandate for several years and this cost-saving mechanism does not appear to be kicking in.

At this point, it seems more plausible that the cost of health insurance will keep rising, just as the costs of health care services have continued to climb. The upshot is that the burdens of mandatory purchase, the subsidy costs and the associated implicit marginal tax rates will all increase, eventually to the point of unsustainability.

A further problem is “mandate creep,” which we’ve seen at the state level, as groups lobby for various types of coverage — whether for acupuncture, alcoholism and fertility treatments, for example, or for chiropractor services or marriage counseling.

There are now about 1,500 insurance mandates among the various states, and hundreds of others are under consideration. The dynamic at work here is that the affected groups have a big incentive to push for mandates, while most other people are unaware of the specific issues and don’t become involved.

Because mandates don’t stay modest for long, health insurance would become all the more expensive. The Obama administration’s cost estimates haven’t considered these longer-run “political economy” issues.

IF there is a problem with mandates, why do they seem to work in countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands? One answer is that mandates are more effective when health care cost inflation is under control, and both of those countries fare better at technocracy than the larger, less tightly ordered United States.

And mandates also fare better in those nations because of their greater equality of incomes. In other words, it’s less of a stretch to offer poorer people coverage that is roughly comparable to that of the wealthy.

If anything, however, European mandates will face growing problems, as health care cost inflation is spreading globally.

We’re often told that America should copy the health care institutions of Western Europe. Yet we’re failing to copy the single most important lesson from those systems — namely, to put cost control first. Instead, we’re putting our foot on the gas pedal and ratcheting up the fiscal pressures on the system, in the hope that someday, somehow, it will all work out.

As it stands, we’re on the verge of enacting a policy that is due to explode, penalizing many of the very people that it was ostensibly designed to help.

Prognosis improves for public insurance

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:08:00 +0000

Washington post-

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House have concluded that a government-run insurance plan is the cheapest way to expand health coverage, and they sought Friday to rally support for the idea, prospects for which have gone in a few short weeks from bleak to bright.The shift in momentum is so dramatic that many lawmakers now predict that President Obama will sign a final bill that includes some form of government-sponsored insurance for people who do not receive coverage through the workplace. Even Democrats with strong reservations about expanding government's role in the health-care system say they are reconsidering the approach in hopes of making low-cost plans broadly available.

The public option emerged as a flash point in the reform debate at the outset, with liberals championing it as a precursor to a single-payer system and conservatives warning that it would lead to rationing. The rhetoric reached a fever pitch in hundreds of raucous town-hall meetings during the August congressional recess, leading Democrats -- including Obama -- to back off the idea for fear that it would sink overall reform legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought support Friday for expansive versions of the public option as they prepared to send reform legislation to the Senate and House floors. Their goal is to pass bills with similar versions of the public insurance option so that final talks between the two chambers can focus on other issues that could prove more difficult to resolve.

On Friday, congressional leaders marveled at how quickly the landscape has changed. "This is an exact quote: 'Off the table,' " House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) said, recalling the headlines earlier this month when the Senate Finance Committee rejected two versions of the public option in its reform bill.

Clyburn said the debate is no longer whether to include a public option, but "whether or not we will get this form of a public option or that form of a public option." Since the talk of "death panels" at town-hall meetings in August, Clyburn said, the political climate has changed as voters have come to understand "that all of this foolishness was just that -- foolishness. Nobody wants to pull the plug on Grandma."

Frustrating to some

The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy. In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), a moderate Democrat, said she still opposes a national plan financed by the federal government but would consider other permutations of a public plan, including a provision Reid is circulating to establish an "opt-out" clause for states that don't want to participate. "There is a way to compromise this, I believe," she said. "The goal is not public or private. The goal is choice and affordability."

Reid's strategy is to try to persuade his Democratic caucus to allow a health-care bill with an opt-out public plan to come to the floor, even if there is no guarantee that all 60 senators who caucus with Democrats would ultimately vote for it. All 40 Senate Republicans, including Sen. Olympia J. Snowe(Maine), who supported the Finance Committee bill, have pledged to block legislation that includes a government insurance plan. Reid must unite Democrats to break that filibuster.

"He's knows what he's doing is a gamble," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "But more and more, he's convinced it's the right thing to do."

Reid's calculation is that it could be more difficult to add a public option through amendments on the Senate floor than to include it in the bill and force opponents to try to find the votes to strip it out. Manley said Reid would spend the weekend canvassing Democrats on the opt-out idea and would probably decide Monday whether to include it in the Senate bill.

Florida workers’ comp rates to decrease 6.8%

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:05:00 +0000

Florida employers will get another break on workers’ compensation insurance.

The state’s insurance commissioner said Thursday he has approved a proposed rate decrease of 6.8 percent, effective Jan. 1 for all new and renewed workers’ comp policies.

The rate reduction, submitted by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, will result in an estimated $166 million in savings for employers.

It is the seventh consecutive decline in rates since the Florida Legislature passed reforms in 2003.

Last October, the Florida Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling that claimant attorneys were entitled to “reasonable fees” in workers compensation insurance cases.

Critics worried that the decision would result in higher premiums for businesses.

In June, Gov. Charlie Crist signed a bill passed by lawmakers that caps attorneys’ fees in workers’ comp cases, essentially undoing the high court’s decision.

Under the new law, attorneys’ payments are based on a set fee schedule.

“If it were not for this legislation, the workers’ compensation industry in Florida would likely have proposed rate increases instead of decreases in 2010,” Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty said in a news release.

Before the 2003 legislative reforms, Florida’s workers’ compensation rates were among the highest in the country.

BIFS Insurance- Twitter.com

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:44:00 +0000

Please check our updated twitter page. More info and news!!

http://twitter.com/BIFS

Obama Lashes Out at Health Insurers- VIDEO

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:57:00 +0000

"The insurance industry is rolling out the big guns and breaking open their massive war chest - to marshal their forces for one last fight to save the status quo," Obama said. "They're filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads.They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people."
Health insurers released two reports this week warning that the reform legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee would result in soaring premiums. The White House and congressional Democrats have dismissed both reports as misleading efforts to stop the legislation -- a charge Obama repeated in his address. Independent analysts have criticized the reports for not taking into account or underestimating key sections of the health-care bill in reaching its conclusions.
"It's smoke and mirrors. It's bogus. And it's all too familiar," Obama said. "Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time."

Insurance Reform Now!!

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:50:00 +0000

Senator Leahy has courage and he cares. We all must support him vocally in the battle that is about to happen as he takes on Big Insurance. Both President Clinton and President Obama ran for President with a promise to take on the insurance industry. President Clinton never got to first base on that vow and President Obama appears to be caving in to the pressure and making back room deals with Big Insurnace and the insurance lobby led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove.

I was reminiscing about a similar battle years ago in California when Harvey Rosenfield took a grassroots initiative battle into the board rooms of the insurance companies in California. Prop 103 passed because Rosenfield asked the California voters what they thought about the insurance industry and their answer was loud and clear: stop insurance abuse and enact insurance reform!

The most important consumer legislation in the last 50 years is presently moving in Congress with Senator Patrick Leahy, VT. leading the way. The insurance industry is the most political, and many say the most politically corrupt, industry in the U.S. Congress is generally afraid of the insurance industry because they will pour unlimited funds into the next election to get rid of any elected official that dares cross them. Its all about money. Their motto?

Obama – no compromise on healthcare reform

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:48:00 +0000

Noble Peace Prize and the issue of US healthcare reform are two different issues altogether and the two can never meet. The proposition has been included, at the very outset, since both aspects are real for US President Obama. Even though he has become the enviable winner of Noble Peace Prize (completely owing to nothing), Obama is neither ready to abandon the issue of US healthcare reform nor to compromise even for once – it is his life-blood.

This belligerent mood was perceived once again when on Thursday, he accused the health insurance industry of trying to deceive Americans about healthcare reform and vowing to overhaul the industry in Congress. Obama did also criticize insurers for running advertisements critical of Democrats’ attempts to reform the health system. “Don’t let them fool you. We’re going to get this done. We’re going to fight for it,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Orleans.

As per Obama, a drop in health insurance companies’ stocks this week highlighted the industry’s nervousness that a healthcare reform bill may pass. “This is when the insurance companies are really going to start gearing up,” he said. “Their stock went down when the Senate Finance Committee voted out that bill. Now they’re getting nervous and, by they way, they have been wildly profitable over the last decade.”

There is no doubt in it that Obama has already made his push for a healthcare reform bill that extends insurance coverage and slashes costs his top domestic priority. He received a boost this week when a Senate Finance panel approved its version of a reform measure with the support of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe.

He is certainly not alone and found another great supporter in House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi who echoed Obama and said the insurers’ recent criticisms made the need for a government-run “public” insurance option even greater

Senate Takes Aim At Insurance 'Monopoly'

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:38:00 +0000

BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF

Democrats declared war on the health insurance industry this morning, opening hearings on a bill that would strip its anti-trust exemption.

“It’s something that should have been done a long time ago,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid, who argued that insurance companies have gotten so large, “they dominate entire regions of the country.”

“They make more money than any business in America today,” he said. “What a sweet deal they have.”

The entire insurance industry got the exemption in 1945’s McCarran-Ferguson Act on the grounds that it was not engaged in interstate commerce, and, federal anti-trust probes would interfere with state rules.

Unlike other industries, insurance companies are allowed to discuss pricing, territories and other practices that would be considered collusion if not for the exemption.

The hearing comes just three days after a health insurance industry trade group warned its members would raise rates even higher than the 6% a year they are expected to go up already if the Senate Finance committee bill passed yesterday becomes law.

Many lawmakers and the White House saw that as a threat.

Although today’s hearing had been scheduled before, lawmakers used it as a chance to fire back, arguing that ending the exemption would immediately open up competition, and curb rate-setting collusion.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer cited Justice Department statistics that found 94% of the nation’s insurance markets are “highly concentrated” and that in nearly 40 states, two firms control over half the market.

“That’s not acceptable,” Schumer said, adding that the anti-trust bill should be added to health care legislation. “We need more competition.”

A representative of the insurance industry argued competitors need to be able to share data because they are pricing things that have not happened, and it’s extremely difficult to predict costs and losses.

The senators were skeptical, however, and pointed to testimony by Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, who argued insurers could still share such “pro-competitive” data.

She suggested strongly the Obama administration favors yanking the anti-trust exemption.

“Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case,” she said.

The insurance industry is taking none of this lying down, and today is firing back with ads in several swing states, charging that the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee yesterday will hurt seniors.

“Most people agree we need to reform health care, but is it right to ask 10 million seniors on Medicare Advantage for more than their fair share?” the spot says. “Congress has proposed more than $100 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage.”

It advises people to call their senators and complain.

One witness in the hearing, Robert Hunter, the Consumer Federation of America’s insurance director, noted that since the industry can collude on prices, it could simply pass along the cost of that ad to consumers.

No quiet way out for federal insurance option

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:32:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — Fears about high costs of the health care overhaul and mistrust of insurers are rekindling interest in letting the government sell health insurance as part of the plan.

Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, they're trying to provide choices.

What if each state could decide whether to offer public coverage instead of having it decreed from Washington — as proposed by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.?

What if states had a menu of options, from nonprofit co-ops to using their own employee health plans?

What if public coverage were offered only as a backstop in areas where one insurer has a lock on the market?

"We are all talking together, trying to find something that not everyone will love but the entire (Democratic) caucus will come to agreement on," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who for months has been seeking a politically viable compromise.

"It's going to be something flexible, but not weak," Schumer added. His idea: a federal plan that states can opt out of.

The leading congressional proposal as of Wednesday — a Senate Finance bill that relies on private coverage with no new government plan — could price out some 17 million Americans. And the insurance industry may have unwittingly helped the case for public coverage with a report over the weekend asserting the Finance bill would raise premiums for everyone.

Business groups and conservatives remain steadfastly opposed to government insurance — formidable political opposition that shows no sign of weakening. So advocates are getting creative, trying to reformulate the "public option" in a way that can gain the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate.

The lone Republican to back health care overhaul legislation, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, has suggested a possible way out: allowing a public plan to kick in if competition among health insurance companies under a revamped system fails to bring down costs. Snowe is opposed to government insurance as a first-line solution.

What if Snowe's idea is combined with an approach that lets states make the call?

"Those are all elements that one could easily fashion into an outcome that would seem to be elegant," said economist Len Nichols of the New America Foundation. "It would show the left: 'Look we will be there when we're needed if coverage is not affordable.' And it would show the right that this not some backdoor government takeover, because we're only going where we're needed."

What to do about the public plan is the most politically sensitive issue on the agenda of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as he sets out to merge the Finance bill with a Senate health committee version that does include a government option.

The health overhaul drive got a potential boost Wednesday as a second Republican senator signaled she's open to voting for a health care bill. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the Finance bill needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs and protect Medicare, but she joined Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.

"My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support," Collins said in an interview.

On Wednesday, top White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, traveled to the Capitol to meet with Reid, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., about combining the Finance bill with the Senate health panel measure.

Reid is giving no hints. Asked Wednesday if he thought it was likely there would be a public plan in his merged bill, he responded: "I'm not betting on health care. 'Likely' is in a game of craps."

Republicans say the fix is in for a public plan. Behind the scenes, Democrats will take Baucus' middle-of-the-road plan and turn it hard to the left, they say.

"We know that the bill written behind closed doors here in the Capitol will be another 1,000-page, trillion-dollar Washington takeover," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Democrats did try one new tack Wednesday, on an issue involving doctors. Senate Democrats are now pushing for quick passage of separate legislation to spare doctors a $247 billion cut in Medicare fees over a decade. That would raise federal deficits, but the White House says the increase should not count in the price tag for the health care overhaul.

A senior Democratic aide said Reid is focused on what's politically achievable.

The public option is being assessed in terms of what it would mean for health care overall and, just as importantly, whether it can win approval, said the staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

A drawback of the Finance bill is that its 10-year, $829 billion budget wouldn't be enough to guarantee access to affordable health insurance for everyone. People with solid middle-class incomes who buy their own coverage would still have to pay hefty premiums — even after tax credits intended to help them out.

For example, a family of four making $66,000 a year and headed by a 45-year-old would face $11,080 in premiums. After a tax credit of $3,182, the family in the example would still have to come up with $7,898 — less than a mortgage but probably more than a year's car payment. The ballpark figures come from the Kaiser Foundation's Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

Because there isn't enough money in the bill for everyone, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Finance bill would leave some 17 million citizens and lawful immigrants without coverage in 2019, when it's fully phased in.

The insurance industry study asserting that the Finance bill would raise premiums for everyone only added fuel to the fire. "The report says costs are going up — the best way to get costs down is the public option," said Schumer.

The heated rhetoric was evident Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Reid and Schumer called for repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers.

Support for a public option runs high in opinion surveys. But opposition from influential interest groups stands as a formidable barrier. It's not just the insurance industry, but many medical providers and businesses big and small.

One group, the National Federation of Independent Business, praised the Finance Committee for passing a bill with no government option and no requirement that employers offer coverage. But if Reid and the Democrats stick either of the two back in, "they will derail health care reform altogether," warned NFIB vice president Susan Eckerly.

NFIB, which represents small businesses, is well known in the health care debate. It was instrumental in killing then-President Bill Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s.

Democrats Fire Back at Insurance Industry Analysis of Health Legislation

bifsinsurance@gmail.com (BIFS Insurance & Financial Services) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:25:00 +0000

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

The latest battle between the Obama administration and the health insurance industry escalated quickly on Monday, as the White House and Congressional Democrats fired back at an industry report suggesting that health premiums would rise sharply as a result of the proposed heath care legislation.

The industry report, prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers, was viewed by Democrats in Washington as an act of serious aggression coming on the eve of a crucial vote on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to approve its version of the health care bill.

But the report was really just the latest example of tension between Democrats and the insurance industry, which has a huge stake in virtually all of the health care bill’s major provisions.

Back in the summer, after Democrats had struggled to find a workable sales pitch that would appeal to the vast majority of Americans who already have health benefits, they finally settled on insurance reform as a main talking point. After initially praising private insurers for supporting the effort to overhaul the health care system, Democrats from President Obama on down suddenly began to stress the need to curb abuses by the insurance industry.

The insurers responded cautiously at that point, stressing that they had been early supporters of the legislation and chalking up the Democrats’ comments as a function of age-old partisan political bickering. As the broad contours of the legislation came into clearer focus last month, however, it seemed to be only a matter of time before the Democrats and the insurance industry were back in full armor ready to battle.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, for instance, includes a tax on high-priced insurance plans, as well as a broad-based fee on insurers to help pay the $829 billion, 10-year cost of the bill. The industry opposes both ideas.

Then, last week, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said that Democrats in her caucus were considering a tax on insurers’ “windfall” profits. Insurers often note that their profit margins are slimmer than many other industries.

Democrats, however, said they heard some of the angriest complaints from the insurance industry over an amendment to the Senate Finance Committee bill that capped the tax deductibility of insurance executives’ salaries at $500,000.

Stephen Crowley/The New York TimesDemocrats say the insurance industry, whose chief lobbyist is Karen Ignani, above, are angry over an amendment by Senator Blanche Lincoln, below, that would cap the corporate tax deduction on insurance executives’ salaries.

SBrendan Smialowski for The New York Times

That amendment, by Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas was added to the bill during committee debate. Ms. Lincoln said that it was intended to prevent insurers from profiting too heavily from a new requirement that virtually all Americans obtain insurance.

White House officials said on Monday that those concerns were raised by Karen Ignani, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main industry group, at a meeting last week with top administration officials including Nancy-Ann DeParle, who coordinates health policy.

The escalating feud between insurers and the administration also offered an opportunity for critics of the industry on Capitol Hill to weigh in with a barrage of new criticism.

“The misleading and harmful claims made today by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst,” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said in a statement. “At a time when millions are suffering every day in the hands of our broken health care system, the idea that anyone’s concern should be whether the insurance companies make enough money is absurd.”

Mr. Rockefeller added: “Health insurance companies have been laughing all the way to the bank for generations while people suffer. The industry stands today as the greatest impediment to real health care reform.”

The insurance industry’s unhappiness with the direction of the legislation on Capitol Hill was evident last week, after the Congressional Budget Office issued a cost analysis, indicating that the bill would extend coverage to roughly 29 million Americans by 2019.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, for instance, issued a statement criticizing steps taken by the Senate Finance Committee to soften penalties in the legislation that would have to be paid by individuals who violate the “mandate” in the bill to obtain insurance. Blue Cross said fewer Americans would obtain insurance as a result, undermining the intent of the legislation.

“It is difficult to understand why the Congressional Budget Office estimate did not show a greater impact from the significant weakening of the mandate in the amended bill,” the association said in its statement. “Amendments approved during the Senate Finance Committee mark-up eviscerated the individual mandate – completely eliminating it in 2013, significantly lowering penalties to the point that it will only represent about 15 percent of the cost of a premium by 2017. Further, many individuals would be exempt from the penalties altogether. This is likely to result in millions of people foregoing coverage. A weak mandate, as included in the amended Senate Finance Committee bill, would encourage people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage. This will drive up premiums for everyone.”

Congressional budget analysts said that other changes to the bill, including an increase in the amount of subsidies that would help moderate-income Americans purchase insurance, and a plan to continue the Children’s Health Insurance Program, would raise the numbers of people gaining insurance and had offset the number of people who would forgo coverage as a result of the softer penalties.

In addition to the White House and Congressional Democrats, other supporters of the health care legislation, including AARP, the lobby for older Americans, weighed in with criticism of the insurance industry report.

Five Questions to Ask When Choosing a Business Insurance Provider

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon S. Taylor- Indepent Insurance Broker) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:24:00 +0000

Any business owner has the responsibility of protecting their investment. Otherwise, all the time, money, and effort spent in building it will have been lost. That's why business insurance exists. More specifically, that's why business liability insurance exists. Asking the right questions when choosing your liability insurance provider is crucial in protecting your business.

What is business liability insurance?

Business liability insurance essentially covers business owners from the risk of loss due to lawsuits from clients and other parties. All businesses are at risk of causing some amount of injury, loss, or damage to other parties and their properties. Without the proper liability insurance to protect oneself from such risks, a business can literally be ruined. Furthermore, choosing the right general liability insurance companies becomes a crucial decision in the formation of a business.

Choosing general liability insurance companies

General liability insurance companies are one option at a business owner's disposal when choosing the right insurance provider for a business. All businesses have their unique set of needs when it comes to risk. Professional services, for example, involve the direct providing of services that require a certain kind of business liability insurance. General liability insurance companies may not serve these kinds of businesses adequately. That's why business owners must ask the right kinds of questions when choosing the insurance that's right for them and their business.

Five questions to ask when choosing business insurance provider

That's why there are five basic questions any business owner should ask when seeking coverage that includes the right business insurance for them. General liability companies that can provide the right answers would be your best choice, of course.

1) Do they have the right experience?

A common impulse among business owners, especially small business owners, is to seek business insurance through their personal insurance provider. This route is easy and understandable. The problem with it is that your personal insurance provider might simply not have the right background in providing the adequate insurance that your business needs.

Simply stated, your personal insurance company might leave you exposed to the kinds of risks involved with your business. Most importantly, your personal insurance company might simply not provide you with the business liability insurance that directly addresses the risks of your specific business.

It's why it's so important that, if you seek general insurance liability companies for your insurance, you do so with one with the background and experience that you need - specifically. Anything else would leave your business exposed to unnecessary risk and loss.

2) Do they provide adequate liability insurance?

Once you have moved beyond your personal insurance provider, and are deciding on which business insurance companies are right for you, the top priority for the business owner is to know if the company provides adequate business liability insurance.

The reason this is such a serious consideration to the business owner is that some general liability insurance companies may not simply have the kind of experience in providing the kind of coverage that your specific business needs. If that's the case, then the kind of danger you're exposing your business to can be considerable. Without the specific insurance package that covers the kinds of products and services you offer, the investment you make in your insurance will simply be a bad one - and one that you may pay dearly for.

3) Will they still adequately insure your assets?

As much as it's important to make sure your business gets adequate business liability insurance, a business owner can't forget the basics. While general liability insurance companies can and do usually provide the kind of protection from liability you need, your business still has assets that need protection from all kinds of risks, including property damage, stolen goods, and other threats to the things you own as a business. Without this basic kind of insurance coverage, all the business liability insurance in the world isn't going to be good enough. A comprehensive package that protects the assets of your business, as well as liability risk, is simply a good business decision.

4) Will they grow with you?

If you want your business to grow, you should expect that your business insurance provider grow with you. Most business decisions involve the need to take into consideration the long term. When choosing among business insurance companies and picking the right business liability insurance, getting beyond the here and now is an important factor to consider.

How much do you expect your business to grow in the first year? How much do you expect your business to grow in five years? What kinds of additional products and services do you think you'll be offering in the future?

Will your business insurance provider help you accomplish you plans and dreams? Will they accommodate you aspirations as well as theirs? Unless you feel comfortable that your insurance provider can stay along for the ride on the path of your choosing, then other liability insurance companies might be your best choice.

5) Can you trust your business insurance provider?

There are many factors involved with trust. Those factors become even more complicated when your business is involved. While you may feel that you're getting the right business liability insurance that meets your needs, it's probably just as important that you believe the insurance company is in it for you as well as for them.

When you're dealing with any business, you simply have to be satisfied with the kind of customer service they're providing. Companies that appear to be more interested in their commissions than your insurance coverage are obviously not good for business and should be avoided.

Choosing among the right business insurance providers out there is one of the most important decisions you'll make as a business owner. Ensuring that you receive the proper liability insurance, on top of adequate coverage for all your assets, are primary concerns. Asking the right questions, doing the necessary homework, and being satisfied that you've done everything to make the right choice in business insurance provider is a must. Otherwise, you're putting at risk everything you've worked for in setting up, establishing, and growing your business.

Canada to Block Banks From Marketing Insurance on Web

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon S. Taylor- Indepent Insurance Broker) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:31:00 +0000

By Theophilos Argitis and Alexandre Deslongchamps

Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he will prohibit banks from using the Internet to market insurance products, claiming the practice violates government policy.

Canadian banks have sought to expand their insurance businesses to offset falling profit, using the Internet to get around restrictions on insurance sales at bank branches. Flaherty told reporters today his “intent” is to introduce legislation banning the practice.

“In our view, it contravenes the policy intent of separating those two functions,” Flaherty told reporters today in Ottawa. “The policy concern has always been mixing the insurance business with the banking business in the same location.”

The country’s bank regulator ruled in June that a Web site “is not a bank branch” and the practice doesn’t violate the law.

The banks’ expansion into the insurance field led them into a showdown with the country’s insurance brokers, who say the lenders are violating rules set up by the federal government in 1991. The guidelines state that banks can only promote insurance “outside of a branch.”

Alexandra Mendes, a Liberal Party member of Parliament, today held a press conference with members of the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada to announce she has introduced a private members’ bill to prohibit the practice.

Flaherty said today he wrote to the banks asking them to “quickly” stop the practice.

Royal Bank of Canada spokeswoman Stephanie Lu declined to comment on the issue when contacted by Bloomberg News. Rod Giles, spokesman for the Ottawa-based Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, said in an e-mailed statement that the regulator has “nothing to say in response to the minister’s comments.”

Obama speaks to doctors on the new reform

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon S. Taylor- Indepent Insurance Broker) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:50:00 +0000

US President Barack Obama is to speak to doctors from around the country gathered at the White House, as part of his drive for healthcare reform.
It comes a day before the Senate Finance Committee is due to vote on its version of a health bill.

If passed, it must be combined with a second bill passed by another Senate committee before the full Senate votes on the legislation.
Analysts say Mr Obama faces a tough few weeks as he seeks progress on reform.
The doctors invited to the White House on Monday include at least one from every US state.Health reformers have been trying for decades to set up a universal healthcare system in America.

The Senate Finance Committee's bill will not include a government-run insurance option for people without employer-provided coverage, unlike other panels' bills.
But it will mandate all Americans to get health insurance, and offer subsidies for the less well-off.

Tougher regulations
If the finance committee votes to approve the bill, it will be the first time that a healthcare reform bill has been passed by all five of the congressional committees with jurisdiction over healthcare.
The bill still needs to negotiate a number of congressional hurdles before it can become law, however.
Once the bill leaves the finance committee, it will be combined with the Senate health committee's bill, and go before the full Senate for a vote.
If it passes the Senate, it will be combined with the House of Representatives' version by a conference committee and go back before both houses for final approval.
All of the different versions of the bill are broadly similar in the scope of their reforms.
They would all toughen up regulations on health insurers, mandate all Americans to get insurance, offer subsidies to the less well-off and set up health insurance exchanges for people without employer-sponsored coverage, to help them choose between different options.
Lawmakers are divided, however, over whether people with access to the exchanges should be allowed to choose a new state-run scheme - the so-called "public option".
All three house committees supported the proposal, as did the other Senate committee with jurisdiction, the health committee.
But moderate Democrats and Republicans are opposed to the public option, and joined together in the finance committee to block amendments to include it in the bill.
Centrist Democrats are attempting to come up with a compromise proposal, and some form of public option could still be included in the final Senate bill.