Do you ever write someone who's GI as underwritten?

[fed up]

without explaining why you are saying that

If the plan and the cost are the same there is no benefit to the client which way the application is submitted. The GI will be accepted even if there are issues which will be addressed in an underwritten case. Todd, this is about commission and what's best for the agent dollarwise. You generally have very sound judgement and I enjoy your posts and arguments but we never do what's best for US unless it is to walk away from a situation

 

[Todd King]

If the plan and the cost are the same there is no benefit to the client which way the application is submitted. The GI will be accepted even if there are issues which will be addressed in an underwritten case. Todd, this is about commission and what's best for the agent dollarwise. You generally have very sound judgement and I enjoy your posts and arguments but we never do what's best for US unless it is to walk away from a situation

That is exactly right! So, if you are not hurting the client in any way, shape, or form, then why not get paid more if you can. There is not one thing that is unethical about that! We do this for a living you know.

 

[vic120]

If the plan and the cost are the same there is no benefit to the client which way the application is submitted. The GI will be accepted even if there are issues which will be addressed in an underwritten case. Todd, this is about commission and what's best for the agent dollarwise. You generally have very sound judgement and I enjoy your posts and arguments but we never do what's best for US unless it is to walk away from a situation

I would understand IF the Client was losing something to get a commission but this is not the case

Why should we not get paid for our service when we can? I don't know about you but I do a lot for my clients

We are in buis to help people but its still a buis We are not charity, Again I do stress the GI will be used when necessary but if not necessary why not get paid

This is where I don't understand your logic it seems like self-punishment for no reason

 

[Newby]

Back when those cases came up in the past I wrote them with Plan G 100% of the time. Better for both of us. I never believe in placing healthy people in any pool that accepts GI if I can avoid it. I never recommended that anyone take Plan F unless it was a last resort.

I guess G is the new F? Any plan that gets a lot of GI cases will never be as stable on rates as a plan that doesn't.

 

[somarco]

I guess G is the new F? Any plan that gets a lot of GI cases will never be as stable on rates as a plan that doesn't.

I had this discussion with some HO types at a carrier I use. They are coming out with some "new" plans that almost no one writes in hopes of picking up business OTHER THAN plan G.

They are somewhat competive on G but rather than make adjustments to be more competitive they would rather nibble around the corners and encourage agents to sell a lesser plan for about the same premium as G.

They assume G will be poisoned by the GI business.

Perhaps, but I don't really think so.

Most carriers in most states pay next to nothing for GI business. As @bill3173 pointed out, the AGENT is better off selling an MAPD plan vs taking $0 for a GI Medigap.

I don't write MA plans and, like Bill, will only write a GI Medigap if it is a referral from an existing client. Otherwise I tell them to go direct to UHC and leave me out of it.

In some ways G is the "new" F and if G starts to experience higher increases it will be more because of IEP business and lowball rates than the GI portion of that block.

YMMV

 

[bill3173]

That is exactly right! So, if you are not hurting the client in any way, shape, or form, then why not get paid more if you can. There is not one thing that is unethical about that! We do this for a living you know.

You weren't talking to me, but my comments were directed at

If the plan costs the same for the client whether it is GI or UW, then what's the problem? If he can get paid more by doing it UW, then so be it. The client gets the Plan N (or whatever) and there is not a lick of difference to the client whether it is GI or UW. The client doesn't lose, nor do they gain anything.

So, once again, how is this not in the best interest of the client?

No disagreement here, but I was only pointing out that it is troublesome, especially if they don't stand a chance of being underwritten. The case that I mentioned, they tried to run away from me, because another agent was going to sell them a cheaper, non gi plan. If you knew their health, you would have laughed at the project. So, I waited for them to come back, and they did, once he brought them a decline.

In the process of bringing them a decline, he checked some boxes on the app wrong so he could accidentally on purpose make them an underwritten case. Additionally, he fake answered the health questions. What a waste of time...

 

[WCMason]

One of the carriers has a newsletter with a column on compliance and legal issues. Maybe four years ago the column was on this exact topic: the ethics of writing an underwritten app for someone who is eligible for GI. It was described as a very bad idea that could put the agent in legal trouble, because a UW app creates a contestability period that a GI app would not. It puts the policyholder unnecessarily at risk for the sole purpose of benefitting the agent financially.

I remember it because I exchanged emails with the author asking about a situation where a person is eligible for GI but wants a plan that is not eligible for GI, like Plan N. In this case the policyholder gets a lower rate, so doing this benefits the applicant also, not just the agent, so long as the applicant knows there is a GI right available and the contestability period they may be subject to if they don't exercise that right.

An agent who writes a UW app for a plan that is available to that applicant GI is taking a risk to their career that seems bigger than the commission on one app.

 

[somarco]

That's an interesting view, but how is it different from any other UW app?

Essentially ANY UW app creates a liability, exposing the policyholder to a risk on future claims. IMO the risk is minimal, especially compared to undewriting U65 major med (pre-Obamacare).

I submit a fair number of UW apps each year. Most are approved (I conduct a VERY thorough interview with the clients) and often pre-screen apps that are marginal.

As mentioned earlier, I rarely write a GI app but that is purely financial. My liability AND the amount of service on an app that pays $0 is the same as one that is full comp. I don't need or want to be a social worker, and end up offering enough uncompensated advice as is, without adding any more to the heap.

I have only been writing Medigap for 10 years but have yet to have a problem with ANY UW application. Perhaps 10 - 15% of apps I write each year are UW.

 

[vic120]

That's an interesting view, but how is it different from any other UW app?

Essentially ANY UW app creates a liability, exposing the policyholder to a risk on future claims. IMO the risk is minimal, especially compared to undewriting U65 major med (pre-Obamacare).

I submit a fair number of UW apps each year. Most are approved (I conduct a VERY thorough interview with the clients) and often pre-screen apps that are marginal.

As mentioned earlier, I rarely write a GI app but that is purely financial. My liability AND the amount of service on an app that pays $0 is the same as one that is full comp. I don't need or want to be a social worker, and end up offering enough uncompensated advice as is, without adding any more to the heap.

I have only been writing Medigap for 10 years but have yet to have a problem with ANY UW application. Perhaps 10 - 15% of apps I write each year are UW.

Seems there was some video of a seminar going around, with Ins carrier explaining exactly that if a client lied bla bla

I am not going to be concerned if someone chooses to lie its on them I do make sure I do my part and make sure they understand the applicant knows there is a GI right available and the contestability period they may be subject to if they don't exercise that right.

But I basically explain the dangers of lying on app anyway

So no different And I don't know how If a client lies that can be anyone responsibility besides the client who lied, Just like its the client's responsibility to pay the premium

 

[LostDollar]

That's an interesting view, but how is it different from any other UW app?

Essentially ANY UW app creates a liability, exposing the policyholder to a risk on future claims. IMO the risk is minimal, especially compared to undewriting U65 major med (pre-Obamacare).

I submit a fair number of UW apps each year. Most are approved (I conduct a VERY thorough interview with the clients) and often pre-screen apps that are marginal.

As mentioned earlier, I rarely write a GI app but that is purely financial. My liability AND the amount of service on an app that pays $0 is the same as one that is full comp. I don't need or want to be a social worker, and end up offering enough uncompensated advice as is, without adding any more to the heap.

I have only been writing Medigap for 10 years but have yet to have a problem with ANY UW application. Perhaps 10 - 15% of apps I write each year are UW.

Seems there was some video of a seminar going around, with Ins carrier explaining exactly that if a client lied bla bla

I am not going to be concerned if someone chooses to lie its on them I do make sure I do my part and make sure they understand the applicant knows there is a GI right available and the contestability period they may be subject to if they don't exercise that right.

But I basically explain the dangers of lying on app anyway

So no different And I don't know how If a client lies that can be anyone responsibility besides the client who lied, Just like its the client's responsibility to pay the premium

I find @WCMason 's post to be a very clear cautionary tale.