Arthur Rudnick
Guru
- 1,652
The end result will be less carriers will be offering LTCi in CA.
ProducersWeb - Health - California Senate panel OKs LTCI premium bill
ProducersWeb - Health - California Senate panel OKs LTCI premium bill
California LTCi Bill
- Thread starter Arthur Rudnick
- Start date
2
2insureyou
Guest
While I can appreciate what they are doing in trying to protect the consumer, you are right, this is bad for the LTCi industry.
2
2insureyou
Guest
I'm interested to hear your reasoning. (I'm being genuinely serious, not sarcastic)
Because this makes sense and it's fair:
A.B. 999 also would limit the ability of an LTCI carrier to use the claims for a relatively small group of policyholder to justify rate increase requests, backers say. An insurer would have to use the experience for all similar LTCI policy forms issued and retained by an insurer and its affiliates to justify requests for rate increases.
(defining a "class" as 65-69 year olds who purchased a lifetime benefit period is not fair to consumers, in my opinion.)
Because I already do this anyway and it's a good thing:
Another provision would require an insurer to let a consumer see the LTCI policy language before the consumer buys the policy. An insurer would have to make a copy of a policy form or certificate form available within 15 calendar days after the consumer asked to see it.
Because this is good for consumers:
"This bill will curb a troubling trend in the number and size of long-term care rate increases," Jones says in a statement. "Without this legislation, consumers, many on fixed incomes, will continue to face uncertainty, never knowing what rates to expect from year to year."
What's not to like about this bill?
Worst case, a few more companies stop selling in CA or charge higher premiums from here forward. So what?
- Thread starter
- #6
Arthur Rudnick
Guru
- 1,652
Because this makes sense and it's fair:
A.B. 999 also would limit the ability of an LTCI carrier to use the claims for a relatively small group of policyholder to justify rate increase requests, backers say. An insurer would have to use the experience for all similar LTCI policy forms issued and retained by an insurer and its affiliates to justify requests for rate increases.
What you're descibing is a Class of policyholders. There has never been a stipulation in any state as to the criteria and/or size of that Class.
(defining a "class" as 65-69 year olds who purchased a lifetime benefit period is not fair to consumers, in my opinion.)
Maybe it's unfair, but that's exactly what a Class is. If a company can show that they're losing money or there's a potential to lose money on a particular Class of policyholders, the DOI allows them to file for a rate increase. It's up to the state to approve, deny or limit the increase.
Because I already do this anyway and it's a good thing:
Another provision would require an insurer to let a consumer see the LTCI policy language before the consumer buys the policy. An insurer would have to make a copy of a policy form or certificate form available within 15 calendar days after the consumer asked to see it.
Disclosure statements and/or Outlines of Coverage are required to be left with the applicant
Because this is good for consumers:
"This bill will curb a troubling trend in the number and size of long-term care rate increases," Jones says in a statement. "Without this legislation, consumers, many on fixed incomes, will continue to face uncertainty, never knowing what rates to expect from year to year."
What's not to like about this bill?
Worst case, a few more companies stop selling in CA or charge higher premiums from here forward. So what?
The only thing not to like is that companies will drop out of the CA market and give consumers less options & choices. If a carrier sees a potential for a non-profitable business, they will chose to leave the market. The ones that stay, may over-price their product in anticipation of having rate increases denied.
Good for consumers? On the surface 'yes'. But at the end of the day, it's bad for the carriers. And, if it's bad for the carriers, the consumer will eventually pay the price.
A.B. 999 also would limit the ability of an LTCI carrier to use the claims for a relatively small group of policyholder to justify rate increase requests, backers say. An insurer would have to use the experience for all similar LTCI policy forms issued and retained by an insurer and its affiliates to justify requests for rate increases.
What you're descibing is a Class of policyholders. There has never been a stipulation in any state as to the criteria and/or size of that Class.
(defining a "class" as 65-69 year olds who purchased a lifetime benefit period is not fair to consumers, in my opinion.)
Maybe it's unfair, but that's exactly what a Class is. If a company can show that they're losing money or there's a potential to lose money on a particular Class of policyholders, the DOI allows them to file for a rate increase. It's up to the state to approve, deny or limit the increase.
Because I already do this anyway and it's a good thing:
Another provision would require an insurer to let a consumer see the LTCI policy language before the consumer buys the policy. An insurer would have to make a copy of a policy form or certificate form available within 15 calendar days after the consumer asked to see it.
Disclosure statements and/or Outlines of Coverage are required to be left with the applicant
Because this is good for consumers:
"This bill will curb a troubling trend in the number and size of long-term care rate increases," Jones says in a statement. "Without this legislation, consumers, many on fixed incomes, will continue to face uncertainty, never knowing what rates to expect from year to year."
What's not to like about this bill?
Worst case, a few more companies stop selling in CA or charge higher premiums from here forward. So what?
The only thing not to like is that companies will drop out of the CA market and give consumers less options & choices. If a carrier sees a potential for a non-profitable business, they will chose to leave the market. The ones that stay, may over-price their product in anticipation of having rate increases denied.
Good for consumers? On the surface 'yes'. But at the end of the day, it's bad for the carriers. And, if it's bad for the carriers, the consumer will eventually pay the price.
- 15,041
Well said Arthur, well said.
And regarding policy language, I have yet to meet a company that doesn't make specimen policies available for every product. The problem is, no one ever asks to see them, agents or consumers.
And regarding policy language, I have yet to meet a company that doesn't make specimen policies available for every product. The problem is, no one ever asks to see them, agents or consumers.
the state of Indiana's LTCi experience contradicts every point you've made. If this kind of rate increase regulation was as bad for the insurers as you suppose, then there would be ZERO LTC insurance for sale in Indiana.
Last edited:
- 14,809
I know this is LTC but and maybe something has changed, but in 2004 I called all 8 health carriers in MD asking for specimen policies. One said yes. The other 7 acted like I was calling Coke and asking for the secret recipe.
- Thread starter
- #10
Arthur Rudnick
Guru
- 1,652
And, that's why I don't live in Indiana.
Personally, if Appointed with a company, I've never had a problem getting every form & document, including a Specimen Policy.
Last edited:
Similar threads
