Foot Care - E & L

[somarco]

Golden Rule did in fact pull out of several states (as have AMS and other carriers). GR pulled out of GA about 3 years ago, then re-entered with new plans (filed with the DOI as non-association plans).

During the time they were "out" of GA they did not write new business. But they continued to service existing policy holders.

Prove that GR cancelled all existing policies when they exited LA.

I personally think you are full of ****.

 

[jbage007]

Golden Rule did in fact pull out of several states (as have AMS and other carriers). GR pulled out of GA about 3 years ago, then re-entered with new plans (filed with the DOI as non-association plans).

During the time they were "out" of GA they did not write new business. But they continued to service existing policy holders.

Prove that GR cancelled all existing policies when they exited LA.

I personally think you are full of ****.

If they did not cancel all existing policies, then they did not "pull out" (remember that little game from junior high)?

It's typically a 5 year minimum to re-enter after a true pull-out (in most states). Sounds to me like the GA deal was more of a self-imposed moratorium.

Ahh, AMS. Let's see, by blood or maybe marriage it is, that would be, hmm, let's see, oh yeah, the golden company's sister.

I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to prove anything, prove they did NOT term every existing policy. That is generally the reason a company pulls out.

They could not cancel just one policy. It's all or nothing man. What rock have you been living under?

In case you haven't noticed, I really don't care what some little GA health agent thinks about me. Like a famous trucker once said: You drive your truck and I'll drive mine. But thanks for your input.

 

[somarco]

Just an update.

A few years ago the LA DOI decided they did not like some of the language in the policies and told GR they could no longer sell, or renew, those policies in the state. UHC came back with the same policy structure, with the same language which was approved.

Many of the older policies aged off the books at renewal (in compliance with the DOI) while some were rewritten under the UHC brand.

 

[djs]

It's not uncommon for a carrier to pull out of a state. Doesn't happen every day, but it happens often enough. My guess is, you would be hard pressed to find a carrier that hasn't done it at some point, or at least threatened to do it, if some piece of legislation wasn't changed.

A while back, all of the major home insurance carriers pulled out of California, due to a mandate from the legislature that they underwrite earthquake insurance. Basically, the government tried to tell carriers how to run their business. Carriers said we don't tell you how to run the state, and left. The legislature gave in, changed the rules, the California Earthquake Authority was born, and the carriers came back.

The fact a carrier pulls out of a state should not be seen as unethical by itself. GR didn't pull out for one cancer case, as is implied. Of course, this by no means makes the statement that health carriers are completely ethical either

Dan

 

[Dave020]

In California, three carriers "pulled out" so to speak and closed blocks of business. Principal, Cigna and Aetna. Of the three, only the Principal did an honorable thing.

When Principal pulled out of CA IFP, they made an agreement with Blue Cross CA to take on the entire block of business. Blue Cross offered GI move over at +50% pricing or the opportunity to get standard rate through underwriting. Either way, you were covered.

Cigna was the most aggregious, they literally dumped about 4,000 people onto the MRMIP rolls who were uninsurable. I remember calling them about this before they left and was told that they had zero interest in making any provisions for their insured IFP clients.

Aetna, as I recall, stopped selling but continued to service existing policyholders. No new enrollments for several years.