- 423
Competition makes products better, get rid of Standardized med supps. Require all companies to have at least 1 plan with prescription benefits, do away with Part C and Part D.
No Standardization
- Thread starter dandan
- Start date
Standardization is good. Imagine you're a senior trying to compare plans from Company A @$150/mo, Company B @$110/mo, and Company C @$140/mo. They all designed their own plans, have various deductibles, co-pays, and things they don't cover, etc. Now... how the hell do you make a decision?
I do think the drug plans need to be standardized and the drug prices controled the same way Medicare Assignment works. That would cut down big time on this AEP confusion. All plans cover the same drugs, but can assign their own co-pays and premiums. Medicare sets the tier structure.
I do think the drug plans need to be standardized and the drug prices controled the same way Medicare Assignment works. That would cut down big time on this AEP confusion. All plans cover the same drugs, but can assign their own co-pays and premiums. Medicare sets the tier structure.
- Thread starter
- #4
- 423
You have got to be kidding me, confusing to the seniors? Lets see partc and d plans, election periods, scope of appointments etc.
Nothing is more confusing to them as it is now.
Nothing is more confusing to them as it is now.
- Staff
- #5
try selling individual health.....
- 7,066
One cannot compare Part C plans to Medicare Standardized Medicare Supplement Plans.
Prior to 1990 the Medicare Standardized Medicare Supplement Plans did not exist. Insurance companies were at liberty to design anything they wanted and call it a "Medicare Supplement Plan". There was total chaos in the market place and seniors were getting ripped off.
I feel the same way about the current Part C plans. Nothing is more confusing to them than the Part C plans as you stated above. Let agents sell them the same way they do Med Supps and standardize them.
I find it interesting that before the advent of PFFS plans there were no problems with Part C plans. Agents have brought a good deal of that on themselves. Or should I say, "agents"?
Standardization is the best thing that has ever happened to Med Supps. What is really needed is standardization of the Part C plans so both seniors and AGENTS know what they do and can make and help seniors make an intelligent, well-informed decision regarding which is the best for each individual.
One would think that Medicare learned something from standardization in 1990. Oops, I forgot, we are dealing with the govt.
The drug lobby will never, ever, let something like that happen to Medicare Part D plans.
A VERY UNINFORMED PERSON SAID " Standardization is the best thing that has ever happened to Med Supps"
=============================================
Wrong again my friend! Standardization was the best thing that ever happened for the insurance companies, Standardization was a disaster for the senior citizens and the insurance agents. Need I remind you that before standardization insurance agents were collecting 50 ro 60% first year commissions on medicare supps. Before standardization the renewals on med supps were 15%! Before standardization the insurance companies were forced to compete with each other by always having to come up with a better policy. In fact it was standardization that forced the need for seperate medicare drug plans. Before standardization there were Medicare supps out there that covered drugs. The insurance agents were having a field day making those 50 and 60% first year commisions and the insurance companies came up with a way to end it. Back in the early 90's all the state department of insurance directors got together for a big pow wow at Hilton Head Island where they hashed out their plan to standardize medicare supplements and they attached the clause where agents could only recieve level commissions. As anyone knows the heads of the state department of insurances are politically appointed positions and most of these guys are nothing short of tools for the insurance industry. Standardization was a tragic loss for the customers and the agents. Standardization was one of the worst things that ever happened to me in this career!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For those that were around before standardization United American was a great company to sell for. You had a direct contract with the company that was 60% first year and 15% renewals forever. When standardization came in United American cut their med supp contracts to 25% across the board. All of a sudden there was no money in it for agents to sell people a new supplement. United American within a couple of years found its med supp business crashing through the floor. Thats when they started recruiting shister mister regional general agents and making new agents contract through them. Standarization killed United Americans medicare supplement business and then the slime ball district and regional general agents came in and put the final knife in.
=============================================
Wrong again my friend! Standardization was the best thing that ever happened for the insurance companies, Standardization was a disaster for the senior citizens and the insurance agents. Need I remind you that before standardization insurance agents were collecting 50 ro 60% first year commissions on medicare supps. Before standardization the renewals on med supps were 15%! Before standardization the insurance companies were forced to compete with each other by always having to come up with a better policy. In fact it was standardization that forced the need for seperate medicare drug plans. Before standardization there were Medicare supps out there that covered drugs. The insurance agents were having a field day making those 50 and 60% first year commisions and the insurance companies came up with a way to end it. Back in the early 90's all the state department of insurance directors got together for a big pow wow at Hilton Head Island where they hashed out their plan to standardize medicare supplements and they attached the clause where agents could only recieve level commissions. As anyone knows the heads of the state department of insurances are politically appointed positions and most of these guys are nothing short of tools for the insurance industry. Standardization was a tragic loss for the customers and the agents. Standardization was one of the worst things that ever happened to me in this career!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For those that were around before standardization United American was a great company to sell for. You had a direct contract with the company that was 60% first year and 15% renewals forever. When standardization came in United American cut their med supp contracts to 25% across the board. All of a sudden there was no money in it for agents to sell people a new supplement. United American within a couple of years found its med supp business crashing through the floor. Thats when they started recruiting shister mister regional general agents and making new agents contract through them. Standarization killed United Americans medicare supplement business and then the slime ball district and regional general agents came in and put the final knife in.
Last edited:
- 4,707
Did you sell Med Supps prior to 1991 ??
Let me assure you, there was no way to compare apples to apples.
Standardization made comparison shopping for the consumer much easier. Also made my life easier as the Mega's of the world had to operate on a standardized playing field.
A JACK*** once said "A VERY UNINFORMED PERSON SAID " Standardization is the best thing that has ever happened to Med Supps"
Starting off a conversation with a belittling remark doesn't seem to work does it.
I noticed that most of your post involved commission rates and what is best, or was detrimentle, to you or an insurance company.
The seniors I talk to all day long seem to like the simplification of the plans and make explaining there coverage much easier for me to get them to understand that they won't be losing their coverage if they change to save money.
- 7,066
It sure sounds like it is all about his commission without having any compassion for his prospects.
The part he left out was that they discovered seniors who had three, four and even five of those pre-standardized plans. Agents, those who only cared about their commissions, would review a seniors plan and tell them it looked pretty good but it had gaps. Those agents would tell the senior if they also took their policy in addition to the one they had that the gaps would be covered. They were saying anything just to make a sale. Seniors were at the mercy of unscrupulous agents.
It is because of those agents, the ones who were only interested in commissions and not really helping seniors, that prompted the formation of the standardized plans as we know them today. It is easy to understand why certain agents were not happy with standardization.
I for one think it was the best thing that could have been done to protect seniors from those agents.
Similar threads
