- 15,319
Frank:
I'm taking the first flight to sh*tcreek, Mo and am going to kick your ass!
Rick
I'm taking the first flight to sh*tcreek, Mo and am going to kick your ass!
Rick
A More Logical Time-frame for MAs and PDPs?
- Thread starter Joe Moore
- Start date
- 7,066
No direct flights to sh*tcreek. You will have to take a stagecoach from St. Louis. Better bundle up, the temp is 20 degrees and it is about a three day trip.
Sorry, I sold my ass last year and replaced it with a billy goat. I would not advise trying to kick my billy, but you do what you think is best.
See, I told you this thread would end up in the Fight Club.
- 11,997
***Disclaimer, Massive Sarcasm Below, Please Laugh While Reading***
You've got it! I am a company man who works for Humana, Pyramid, UHC, Aetna and more. I also have deep ties with congress and CMS and have infiltrated this forum to help win over the agents and help them understand things.
Yes, lock-in is only good for the company. Providers don't benefit from having one insurance company to work with for the majority of the year, seniors don't benefit from not getting hounded about their health insurance all year round and agents certainly don't benefit from being able to take time to prepare for the selling season. Why would an agent want to be able to take the time to review the different plan options for the year, get certified with the plans they'd like to represent, and then meet with their clients to discuss the different options? Why should we make seniors pick a plan they have to stay in for as much as a whole year when that's exactly the way employer plans work?
Let's all head to the polls and vote on this so we can bring real change to the industry?
***End of Sarcasm***
Again, I hope anyone reading this took it the way it was intended and had a good laugh at it. Just to be clear, I'm not really a company guy, I've just had experience working from either side of the table and have an understanding and appreciation for them both.
- 19,647
Instead of trying to be dismissive by making a bad joke, you could try to give examples of where lock-in is good for the members and/or the writing agent. Since you cannot, you resort to typical management trickery. I'm sure that the agents here know exactly how to take postings here.
- 11,997
The purpose of my joke was not to be dismissive, but rather to lighten the tone of the conversation. I realize this is how you, other agents, and myself all make a living, but there is no reason to be rude or insulting because I'm contributing to a post and have a difference of opinion with you about things. I really am sorry you didn't enjoy my joke, hopefully others can have a better sense of humor about it.
Examples of how lock-in is good for members:
More stability in plan options
Less confusion when they visit the doctors
More doctors accept the plans
Only need to deal with the decision for a limited time (which also creates less junk mail
Makes them less susceptible to pushy agents who don't play by the rules.
Gives members enough time to use a plan to find out if it's a good fit for them.
Examples of how lock-in is good for agents:
All of the above plus
Gives agents time to look at plan materials and get certified before they can take an app
Creates a more focused selling season for time to over the summer to take things slower/relax/plan for the next season
Better commissions
Higher retention
Is that management trickery? When you ask for examples I'm be more than glad to give them to you. In each of my posts I try to provide the community with information and opinions that helpful or at least interesting. It seems that when you respond to those you're more interested in trying to insult me than further discuss the issue.
Here are some reasons carriers dislike lock-in:
They have a short window to grow membership.
It's difficult to staff for a somewhat seasonal business.
If you make just a few mistakes during AEP/OEP it will kick their butt all year long.
It makes it more difficult to recruit agents.
It lowers EVERYONE's response rate to mailers, TV commercials, newspaper ads etc.
Here's a biggie, it ticks off agents.
If a member gets a serious condition during the year they have to pay for the cost of the care until the member can switch to a plan that will save the member more money. (yes, I have lots of examples of that)
It forces plans to market during times of the year KNOWN for having higher marketing costs and lower response rates, most of the insurance agencies I worked at would take massive time off for the Holiday's because the price of a lead would double or triple.
It really does go both ways. I think it might hurt carriers more than it helps, but that doesn't seem to be something even they can change.
- 598
I should stay out of this!
- 2,370
Is the lock in a good thing? Maybe yes and maybe no.
However, AARP let it happen. Medicare a lock in prior to the one we have in place in or around the year 2000. AARP did not like the idea and it did not happen.
Why it happened in 2006 I am not sure. I remember reading articles about AARP and people were surprised that it was going to happen.
If you want something changed in government, it takes an expensive handshake and promise of votes for their next election. No one has offered that up so nothing will change.
However, AARP let it happen. Medicare a lock in prior to the one we have in place in or around the year 2000. AARP did not like the idea and it did not happen.
Why it happened in 2006 I am not sure. I remember reading articles about AARP and people were surprised that it was going to happen.
If you want something changed in government, it takes an expensive handshake and promise of votes for their next election. No one has offered that up so nothing will change.
- 1,704
I think lock-in is logical for these MA healthplans because of the way they are structured for reimbursement. The gov't just loves to complicate simple processes. So now we have it! CMS has a bunch of additional work in processing these apps, funding these carriers and overseeing providers and agents. Taxpayers get the bill. HAH
If all these MA plans were standardized; e.g., same copays for all services regardless of carrier, then you wouldn't worry about lock-in. There would be no incentive to change. Only consideration would be premium....and zero is hard to beat.
In a reverse way, the PFFS mirrored the problems what a public would do without lock-in. Constant change is too disruptive.
If all these MA plans were standardized; e.g., same copays for all services regardless of carrier, then you wouldn't worry about lock-in. There would be no incentive to change. Only consideration would be premium....and zero is hard to beat.
In a reverse way, the PFFS mirrored the problems what a public would do without lock-in. Constant change is too disruptive.
- 19,647
Yeah, I can see that lock-in a great thing. I wonder how the med sup companies have managed to hang on without it? MoO is just hanging on by thread hoping that lock-in comes to their world for the rescue.
- 1,704
Yeah, I can see that lock-in a great thing. I wonder how the med sup companies have managed to hang on without it? MoO is just hanging on by thread hoping that lock-in comes to their world for the rescue.
Med supp co's pay 20% of the medical bill and the hosp deductibles. Doesn't matter what carrier...majority claims fall into this scenario. MA's have such a sliding scale per benefit it adds to complexity. IMHO
