Los Angeles Times
David Lazarus
July 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By not making clear the financial risk of organ donation, insurers put donors in danger of losing affordable coverage and discourage potential donors from helping someone in need.
Eight years ago, Los Angeles resident Patricia Abdullah decided to donate a kidney to an acquaintance. She calls it one of the proudest moments of her life.
Last year, Abdullah, 61, lost her job with a publishing company. With it, she lost her employer-based health insurance.
Now she wonders what will happen if she can't find another job with group coverage. If she turns to the individual insurance market, will her act of compassion as an organ donor be perceived by insurers as a "preexisting condition," resulting in higher premiums or even denial of coverage?
"My fear is that they won't accept me because of this," Abdullah said. "It's what they say about no good deed going unpunished."
This is a blurry aspect of the healthcare system. Advocates for organ donation assert that insurers can and do treat donors as having a preexisting condition, but there is little empirical evidence to back that up.
"I'm sure it happens," said Jason Kimbrough, a spokesman for the California Department of Insurance, "but it's not something we track."
.
Read More...
Showing posts with label Life Insurance Beneficiary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Life Insurance Beneficiary. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
China H1 insurance premiums up 6 pct yr/yr - paper
SHANGHAI, July 15 (Reuters) - China's insurance premiums in the first half of the year grew 6.4 percent on the year to 597.6 billion yuan ($87.47 billion), the official China Securities Journal said on Wednesday, quoting a senior regulatory official.
Chen Wenhui, assistant chairman at the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, said life insurance premiums in the first half of the year rose 3.4 percent from a year earlier to 440.0 billion yuan, while asset insurance premiums gained 15.8 percent to 157.6 billion yuan.
China Pacific Insurance Group Co (601601.SS), the country's third-biggest life insurer, said in a statement that premiums of its life insurance subsidiary reached 35.2 billion yuan in the first half of the year, while premiums from its asset insurance subsidiary were 18.6 billion yuan. ($1=6.832 Yuan) (Reporting by Rujun Shen and Eric Burroughs; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
THE SOURCE : Reuters
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:52pm EDT
.
Chen Wenhui, assistant chairman at the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, said life insurance premiums in the first half of the year rose 3.4 percent from a year earlier to 440.0 billion yuan, while asset insurance premiums gained 15.8 percent to 157.6 billion yuan.
China Pacific Insurance Group Co (601601.SS), the country's third-biggest life insurer, said in a statement that premiums of its life insurance subsidiary reached 35.2 billion yuan in the first half of the year, while premiums from its asset insurance subsidiary were 18.6 billion yuan. ($1=6.832 Yuan) (Reporting by Rujun Shen and Eric Burroughs; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
THE SOURCE : Reuters
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:52pm EDT
.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Mich. Democrats take aim at insurance denials
By DAVID EGGERT | Associated Press Writer
5:37 PM CDT, July 13, 2009
ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, Mich. - Insurance companies would face millions of dollars in fines, damages and attorney fees for denying or delaying valid claims under legislation a state House committee is preparing to debate.
Supporters of the bills, including several Democratic lawmakers, upset policyholders and an industry whistle-blower, met with reporters Monday to announce the legislation, which the Democratic-led House Insurance Committee is expected to approve by week's end. They say Michigan is one of four states without serious financial penalties when a court rules an insurer has not fairly settled a claim.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration supports the proposed legislation, but it would likely stall in the Republican-led state Senate, which strongly supports the state's influential insurance industry.
Jo Anne Katzman, a former Allstate Insurance Co. adjuster who handled homeowner claims, told reporters at a brain injury rehabilitation center outside Lansing that employees at the company's branch in Farmington Hills were routinely told to deny claims or, if the Michigan office had spent too much in one month, delay writing checks to policyholders until the following month.
Katzman said employees were encouraged to send claims to a special investigations unit, which she said stops making payments to policyholders living elsewhere while their home is being repaired.
Workers who followed the policies were rewarded with desk refrigerators and clothing, she said.
"We were actually told that our jobs depended on it, that this office was in danger of closing if we kept our claim numbers as high as they had been in Michigan," Katzman said.
Read More...
.
5:37 PM CDT, July 13, 2009
ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, Mich. - Insurance companies would face millions of dollars in fines, damages and attorney fees for denying or delaying valid claims under legislation a state House committee is preparing to debate.
Supporters of the bills, including several Democratic lawmakers, upset policyholders and an industry whistle-blower, met with reporters Monday to announce the legislation, which the Democratic-led House Insurance Committee is expected to approve by week's end. They say Michigan is one of four states without serious financial penalties when a court rules an insurer has not fairly settled a claim.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration supports the proposed legislation, but it would likely stall in the Republican-led state Senate, which strongly supports the state's influential insurance industry.
Jo Anne Katzman, a former Allstate Insurance Co. adjuster who handled homeowner claims, told reporters at a brain injury rehabilitation center outside Lansing that employees at the company's branch in Farmington Hills were routinely told to deny claims or, if the Michigan office had spent too much in one month, delay writing checks to policyholders until the following month.
Katzman said employees were encouraged to send claims to a special investigations unit, which she said stops making payments to policyholders living elsewhere while their home is being repaired.
Workers who followed the policies were rewarded with desk refrigerators and clothing, she said.
"We were actually told that our jobs depended on it, that this office was in danger of closing if we kept our claim numbers as high as they had been in Michigan," Katzman said.
Read More...
.
Bills target insurance firms that drag feet on legit claims
BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF • FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU CHIEF • July 14, 2009
Insurance companies that drag out or deny legitimate claims are the targets of hearings this week led by House Democrats, who said Monday that those companies should be fined up to $1 million and their executives charged with crimes.
The Democrats' 12-bill package would allow the state insurance commissioner to levy a fine of up to $1 million. It would create civil penalties up to triple the cost of the original claim and 5-year felonies for insurance company executives who encourage wrongful denial of claims.
Insurance industry spokespeople criticized the proposal as politically motivated, unnecessary and likely to drive up insurance costs with frivolous lawsuits.
Lori Conarton, spokeswoman for the Michigan Insurance Institute, said only a small percentage of claims filed in the state are disputed. She said insurance company employees work hard to help customers recoup their losses.
Read More....
.
Insurance companies that drag out or deny legitimate claims are the targets of hearings this week led by House Democrats, who said Monday that those companies should be fined up to $1 million and their executives charged with crimes.
The Democrats' 12-bill package would allow the state insurance commissioner to levy a fine of up to $1 million. It would create civil penalties up to triple the cost of the original claim and 5-year felonies for insurance company executives who encourage wrongful denial of claims.
Insurance industry spokespeople criticized the proposal as politically motivated, unnecessary and likely to drive up insurance costs with frivolous lawsuits.
Lori Conarton, spokeswoman for the Michigan Insurance Institute, said only a small percentage of claims filed in the state are disputed. She said insurance company employees work hard to help customers recoup their losses.
Read More....
.
Affordable health insurance for small businesses
Source: BOSTON.COM
Posted July 14, 2009 09:15 AM
By State Senator Scott Brown
Guest Columnist
Posted July 14, 2009 09:15 AM
By State Senator Scott Brown
Guest Columnist
Small businesses operating in the Commonwealth today face a very real problem with regard to obtaining affordable health insurance coverage in that they are strictly prohibited by law from banning together to take advantage of group purchasing. Better rates and buying clout in the marketplace can be achieved through strength in numbers in much the same way that cities and towns were granted permission a few years ago. This method is considerably cheaper and gives them more bargaining power, which would allow them to compete with larger companies for the best rates. In order, for small business to negotiate as a group, a state law must be changed and I am in support of this venture.
House Bill 3452, An Act Relative to Small Business Health Insurance, filed by Representative Steven Walsh (D-Lynn) would allow small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to organize nonprofit groups for the purpose of purchasing insurance for their employees, similar to the Group Insurance Commission, which allows towns and cities to purchase insurance collectively, but leaves out small businesses. This would give small businesses the advantage of negotiating for group premiums which would allow them to obtain the best possible rates on health insurance. The overwhelming majority of Massachusetts businesses, about 87 percent, have fewer than 20 employees. This means that there are about 724,000 workers who do not have access to the most affordable health insurance and this figure does not take into account businesses which would still meet the bill’s criteria of less than 50 workers.
A 1991 law previously allowed businesses to buy health insurance from trade associations and gave those associations some privileges in regulating and limiting health coverage; however, this only applied to larger businesses while others were left to pay significantly higher premiums. The new bill is a significant improvement because it contains no exemptions and gives the state insurance commissioner the authority to regulate and oversee the new small-business health plan, rather than the trade associations.
The law was repealed in 1996 and a modified version of it was rejected in 2005. After the law was amended, trade associations and chambers of commerce were relegated to being tools for businesses to more easily find health insurance providers, without providing any discount or other benefits. A small business would receive the same insurance rate whether or not they purchase their health insurance plans through these organizations.
When looking at who may have been left out, or may not have been a winner, in the state’s health reform law, it is evident that it was small businesses. If we are committed to providing the residents of the Commonwealth with affordable access to health insurance, then it is senseless to allow a law to remain on the books that prohibits over 700,000 workers access to cheaper health insurance. The passage of this bill would give small business owners, who make up the majority of Massachusetts businesses, the ability to compete with large corporations and would provide discounted health insurance to a substantial amount of workers and their families.
.
House Bill 3452, An Act Relative to Small Business Health Insurance, filed by Representative Steven Walsh (D-Lynn) would allow small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to organize nonprofit groups for the purpose of purchasing insurance for their employees, similar to the Group Insurance Commission, which allows towns and cities to purchase insurance collectively, but leaves out small businesses. This would give small businesses the advantage of negotiating for group premiums which would allow them to obtain the best possible rates on health insurance. The overwhelming majority of Massachusetts businesses, about 87 percent, have fewer than 20 employees. This means that there are about 724,000 workers who do not have access to the most affordable health insurance and this figure does not take into account businesses which would still meet the bill’s criteria of less than 50 workers.
A 1991 law previously allowed businesses to buy health insurance from trade associations and gave those associations some privileges in regulating and limiting health coverage; however, this only applied to larger businesses while others were left to pay significantly higher premiums. The new bill is a significant improvement because it contains no exemptions and gives the state insurance commissioner the authority to regulate and oversee the new small-business health plan, rather than the trade associations.
The law was repealed in 1996 and a modified version of it was rejected in 2005. After the law was amended, trade associations and chambers of commerce were relegated to being tools for businesses to more easily find health insurance providers, without providing any discount or other benefits. A small business would receive the same insurance rate whether or not they purchase their health insurance plans through these organizations.
When looking at who may have been left out, or may not have been a winner, in the state’s health reform law, it is evident that it was small businesses. If we are committed to providing the residents of the Commonwealth with affordable access to health insurance, then it is senseless to allow a law to remain on the books that prohibits over 700,000 workers access to cheaper health insurance. The passage of this bill would give small business owners, who make up the majority of Massachusetts businesses, the ability to compete with large corporations and would provide discounted health insurance to a substantial amount of workers and their families.
.
State Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) represents the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex District, which includes Needham and precincts B, F and G of Wellesley along with several other communities.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Would You Be Able To Collect A Lost Life Insurance?
If you are a beneficiary of a life insurance of a relative who died, and the insurance policy is lost and you dont know with which insurance company, what will you do? How about if you found the policy after a long time, would you still be able to collect it? Well, the answer really depends.
If the insurance policy is paid for up to the time of death, well yes, you can collect the insurance. There even some insurance wherein you can still collect a reduced benefit even if at some point of time the payment was stopped. The best thing to do if you have an insurance is to inform the beneficiaries about the insurance. Or be sure to leave a copy or a note about the insurance in some place wherein your love ones will immediately find out if in case you will die or whatever...
Read more...
If the insurance policy is paid for up to the time of death, well yes, you can collect the insurance. There even some insurance wherein you can still collect a reduced benefit even if at some point of time the payment was stopped. The best thing to do if you have an insurance is to inform the beneficiaries about the insurance. Or be sure to leave a copy or a note about the insurance in some place wherein your love ones will immediately find out if in case you will die or whatever...
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
