MA Vs Med Supp

[DS4]

Here is a story with a happy ending. One of my existing clients was turning age 65 recently. We went over all the options. Med supp & PDP vs MA-PPO vs PFFS. My client spends 6 months here in Northern Ca and 6 months in Arizona. My client was leaning towards PFFS. After much discussion, weighing the pro cons of MA's, my client took my advise and purchased a Plan F Med supp. After my client arrived in Arizona, he faxed me a copy of a letter he rec'd from the clinic he uses for health care while in Arizona. He was most thankful that I steered him away from MA. Has anyone else seen any letters from providers not accepting MA's?

 

[Frank Stastny]

Good job.

Many times when the difference is explained and prospect really understands the difference between them, especially with a PFFS Plan, the well informed decision they arrive at is to go with a Med Supp.

Your name would have been "mud" if you had taken the easy way to the sale and let them take a PFFS Plan.

Many of my clients live in the South during the Winter months. I strongly recommend to them that they not take one of the Part C plans. In fact, I don't even sell them.

 

[retread]

The MA vs Med Sup argument is analagous to the Term vs Whole Life dispute. Each have their place, and those who advocate one over the other only reveals the prejudiced view of the plans the agent sells.

I advocate a balanced view. Know the pros and cons of both products and explain them to your customer. The trap an agent falls into is selling only one product and trying to justify it at all cost. This is not necessarily in the client's best interest.

One can sell an MA and not serve the client well if the situation warrants a Med Sup, just as the reverse. What good is a Med Sup if the client can't scrape together more than $30/mo for a premium? How many Med Sups do you know that can serve that client at that price? On the other hand, why sell a well-healed client an MA plan when the out-of-pocket costs for co-pays amount to as much or more per annum than the AP for a Med Sup? (Especially those advanced in years where the likelihood of catastrophic illness is more weighted against them) In the latter case, having a MA plan up until they get to that place may preclude their ability to qualify for a Med Sup medically.

This is the dilemma. As long as pre-existing conditions forbid qualification for a Med Sup, the only choice is an MA plan. The best time to enroll in a Med Sup is before those health issues crop up. Then, when they appear, the client has no co-pays to worry with. That's the way I present it... Med Sup: no co-pays... MA no or low premiums. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

BTW: I sell Life insurance the same way. BTID doesn't work because most people don't have the discipline to invest the difference. However, term has it's place... it is just more often that whole life is the smart choice.

 

[Yoda]

"The MA vs Med Sup argument is analagous to the Term vs Whole Life dispute."
================================================

The Term verse Whole life debate has waged on for over 3 decades. On the other hand with the new health reform bill coming soon we have in sight the wonderful potential for the MA's to get choked out of business.

 

[Frank Stastny]

The best time to enroll in a Med Sup is before those health issues crop up. Then, when they appear, the client has no co-pays to worry with.

Well written post, good analogy.

Regarding the quote above: Everyone knows that "bad things" only happen to other people When people are healthy they never see the need for more comprehensive health care programs, seniors especially. They, for the most part, only look at the cost of the plan.

They seem to have the same attitude as a lot of the seniors who I have talked to about LTCi. I have sold a lot of LTCi but many appointments ended with the prospect saying "well, we are healthy now and really don't think we are interested at this time".

With many people it is difficult to get them to look to the future and plan for the unexpected when it comes to health insurance. I ask those people if they have fire insurance on their home and they all say yes. I then ask them when was the last time their house burned down. Virtually all say "never". Then I ask them why they have it. Why, since their house is not on fire, don't they cancel it and wait and take it later.

Obviously they can't answer that question without realizing their answer to the question about their health care really doesn't make much sense. Or, at least to the more intelligent ones it doesn't.