We're looking for a communications and social media manager

Please help us spread the word - do you know a communications expert who's looking for a new challenge? We're currently recruiting for a Public Affairs Communications and Social Media Manager.

This position reports to the Deputy Commissioner for Public Affairs and manages select agency-wide public affairs strategies and communication projects. It also oversees the agency's social media efforts, represents the agency as senior writer and editor on legislatively required reports and high-profile projects for the commissioner and is primary spokesperson for news media and stakeholder groups on agency administrative, civil and criminal enforcement actions.

Here's the full job announcement. Please share with anyone you think might be interested.

We're taking applications through Oct.8.

How to contact Washington's Health Benefits Exchange

Earlier this month, the Washington Healthplanfinder (our state's health insurance exchange) opened its toll-free hotline to start answering questions about health coverage options, how to access financial help and what you need to know about the Exchange's enrollment process. The phone number is 1-855-923-4633 or TTY/TDD 1-855-627-9604. They're available from 7:30 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Healthplanfinder can also help you find other people -- a broker in your local community, say, or a nearby in-person assister -- to help you through the process. Click on the link or image above to find out more.

"I'm on Medicare Part A and B. I want to drop Part B and buy a health plan through the Exchange so that I can get a subsidy"

Don't do it.

That's worth saying again: Do Not Do This.

Here's why: Most health insurance plans have language in their policies that lets them drop anyone who is eligible for Medicare. As a result, even if you manage to sign up for the plan, the company will likely eventually figure out that you're eligible for Medicare and will drop you.

Then, if you go back onto Medicare Part B, you'll have to pay a penalty for as long as you continue to have Medicare. The penalty is 10 percent for each full 12-month period that you could have had Part B.

And that's not all. If you are Medicare-eligible and you purchase a plan offered on the Exchange, you are not eligible for an Exchange plan subsidy. (If you are on Medicare, you are already getting a subsidy, because the federal government pays far more in Medicare costs that current Medicare recipients paid into the program.)

"I just got a letter from my insurer saying that I have to switch health plans because of Obamacare. What can I do?"

Tens of thousands of Washingtonians are -- or will be soon -- getting letters from their health insurers telling them that their plans are going away and that they'll need to pick a new one.

"In order to comply with the new health care law, your current health plan will be discontinued on Dec. 31, 2013," reads one of the letters, which are being sent out by about half a dozen insurers. "But don't worry. You have lots of options."

What's going on? Under health care reform, each health plan has to cover 10 essential benefits. Some of those benefits -- such as prescription drug coverage -- aren't included in many health individual health plans today. The new plans also have to include numerous preventive services, and meet standards for what they'll cover.

In some cases, those benefits mean that the premiums for the new plans will cost more, or that deductibles will be higher.

So what can you do?

1) Remember that as part of health care reform, many consumers will now qualify for subsidies to help offset costs. If your household income is less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level (e.g. $62,040 for a family of two, or $94,200 for a family of four), you may qualify for those subsidies. Also, expanded Medicaid coverage will be available -- for free -- for households that are at less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($21,404 for a family of two).

In other to get the subsidy, which is technically a tax credit, you would need to buy your health coverage through the Washington Health Benefit Exchange. Enrollment begins Oct. 1, with coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Here's a map with links to the rates for health insurance in the Exchange.

2) Shop around for a better deal. You do not need to stay with the insurance company you're with now, although that fact isn't necessarily trumpeted by the insurers in the letters they're sending out. So go on the Exchange -- you can still shop there, even if you don't qualify for a subsidy -- or check with a broker to see what else is available, and what it costs.

What if you have a pre-existing condition and have been turned down for health coverage in the past? It no longer matters. As part of health care reform, insurers must take all applicants. No more health screenings or questionnaires.

3) Remember that the premium is only part of the cost of insurance, particularly if you use the coverage. Your actual out of pocket costs are determined by how much of a deductible you have to meet, how much the co-pays or coinsurance charges are, what drugs are covered, etc. We calculate, for example, that the preventive care included in these policies without any copays, etc. is worth about $500.

"I was turned down for life insurance due to my health. Does this mean I can't get life insurance at all?"

Not necessarily. Different life insurers have different underwriting standards, so another company might insure someone with your health condition.

So try a different company, or try going through a broker, who might know more about which companies might be the best match for your individual situation.

Also, it's a good idea to check with your employer. Some employers offer some life insurance coverage (say $25,000 or $50,000) to their employees without requiring employees to answer health questions.

Pierce County man charged with insurance fraud and attempted theft

A University Place man, Leandre Garner, has been charged by the attorney general's office with felony insurance fraud and second-degree attempted theft for filing a bogus claim with State Farm.

On Nov. 8, 2012, Garner got coverage online with the company for his 2007 Chrysler 300. Prior to that date, the vehicle was uninsured.

On Nov. 9, 2012, Garner said, he returned home from an appointment and discovered that his car had been hit by an unknown vehicle. The damage was estimated at $4,339. Garner filed a claim.

The problem: half a dozen people subsequently told investigators from State Farm and our Special Investigations Unit that Garner's car was damaged well before November. His ex-girlfriend said it happened around September, not November. A nearby tenant, an apartment office worker and an apartment groundskeeper also said the accident happened well before Nov. 8. So did the body shop that did the estimate.

Asked if he'd taken photos of the damage, Garner showed a State Farm investigator cell phone images he'd taken. He was surprised when the investigator pointed out that the metadata embedded in the images showed that they'd been taken Sept. 19, 2012.

When asked about this, Garner said that the must be a problem with the phone.

Arraignment is scheduled for Pierce County Superior Court on Sept. 24, 2013.

"I heard I can keep my adult child on my health insurance until age 26. But do I have to?"

Q: I heard I can keep my adult children on my health insurance until they turn 26. But what if I don't want to?

A: Then don't. Health care reform permits -- but doesn't require -- parents to keep their adult children on the parent's health plan up to age 26, unless the children have coverage through their own employer.

That said, you may want to provide coverage if you can afford it. No one is immune from bad luck, and rates for medical care when a person has no insurance can be very high indeed.

Also: if your child doesn't have a job or has a job that doesn't offer health coverage, you may be able to extend your coverage to him/her more cheaply than they could buy an individual policy on their own.

Woman who pretended to be employer in lost-wage claim pleads guilty to insurance fraud

A woman who pretended to be an employer to help her son allegedly file a fake lost-wages insurance claim has pleaded guilty to insurance fraud.

Sherryl Rose Brongil pleaded guilty on Monday in King County Superior Court to one count of insurance fraud.

According to an investigation by State Farm and our Special Investigations Unit, Brongil's son, Larry Kwant, was accelerating out of a parking lot in her Cadillac when he lost control of the car and caused $26,000 in damage to it. He filed a claim, including 23 days of lost wages at $25 an hour. The form was signed by a "Linda Lee."

Linda Lee turned out to be Sherryl Brongil. Not only did she sign the form, purportedly showing that her son had worked at a company where he'd never worked. She'd also pretended to be administrative assistant "Linda Lee" when contacted by a claims adjuster.

She was sentenced to three months in jail.

As for Kwant, he's been charged with insurance fraud and identity theft.

Common questions about Medicare and health care exchanges

We've been getting a lot of questions about whether the new health care exchanges affect people on Medicare.

The short answer is no. If you have health coverage through Medicare, you don't need to do anything. It will not affect your coverage.

Among the other questions we're hearing frequently:

Do I need to re-enroll in my Medicare plan through the new health insurance Exchange?

Nope. Medicare's open enrollment is not part of the Exchange. If you are on Medicare, do not sign up for a plan in the Exchange.

Will I lose my Medicare coverage due to health reform and the Exchange?

No. Health care reform and the Exchange do not affect your Medicare coverage. You still have the same benefits and security you have now with Medicare.

Will people on Medicare be fined for not buying a health insurance Exchange plan?

No. In fact, it's against the law for someone who knows you have Medicare to sell you an Exchange plan.

Can I go to the Exchange and get a subsidy to help pay for my Medicare coverage?

Sorry, but no. If you're on Medicare, you're not eligible for the subsidies, which are for people buying coverage through the Exchanges.

For more questions -- including how the Exchange and Medicare work for recent immigrants, for those about to turn 65, etc. -- please see our new "popular questions about Medicare and the Exchange" web page.

Changes mean quicker responses to your insurance complaints

We've launched a new complaint response system that's speeding up the time between consumer insurance complaints and resolutions.

As Washington state's insurance regulatory agency and an advocate for consumers, we help with thousands of consumer complaints each year. Typical complaints involve wrongly denied claims, delayed payments and cancelled coverage.

The new online system, which is a secure link between our office and insurance companies we regulate, allows us to quickly get those complaints (along with our questions or concerns) to insurers. They'll look into the case and often reconsider their initial decision.

For years, largely in the interest of protecting complainants' private information, this process was handled by mail. Insurance companies were allowed 30 calendar days to respond to a complaint. 

The new online system is also secure -- and it's dramatically faster. Now insurers must respond electronically within 15 business days.

In other words, we've cut the time to process consumer complaints against insurers by more than 25 percent.

Got a complaint about your insurer? You can file a complaint online or call our Consumer Hotline 1-800-562-6900.

Insurance questions: Does my homeowners policy cover lightning?

In most cases, yes. Lightning is a covered peril in standard homeowners policies. Typically, both direct physical damage -- like burns, shattered windows, melted wiring -- would be covered. And if the lightning sets your home on fire, your fire coverage would also kick in.

How about lightning-caused damage to your electronics, like a TV or computer? Also typically covered.

And what about your car? If that gets hit by lightning, is the damage covered? Again, in most cases yes -- IF you have comprehensive coverage. (A man riding his motorcycle near Chehalis yesterday was struck by lightning, but is apparently doing well, other than a partly melted helmet. Really.)

Health care reform questions: Where can I get help?

Q: Will there be health care advocates for people who are not able to understand the complexities of the health care process? I have a family member who cannot work and is in dire medical need and struggling with doctor and drug costs. What help will they get from the health care reform?

A: Yes, there definitely will be advocates to help people navigate the complexities of finding the right health coverage. Health care reform includes a network of navigators and other people to help, and many insurance agents and brokers can help as well. Here's a list of the organizations that have received grants to provide in-person assistance here in Washington state.

Here in Washington state, you can sign up with the Washington HealthPlanFinder to be contacted by assistance staff within the first two weeks of October. They can answer your questions and help with enrollment in the exchange, if that's the best option for you. The coverage would start in January 2014.

In this particular situation, with your relative struggling today to pay for medical care and prescription drugs, feel free to give our consumer advocacy staff a call. They can walk you through the options, including free or low-cost medical, vision and dental clinics, help paying for drugs, and how to appeal when a health insurer won't pay for a treatment or prescription.

The hotline number is 1-800-562-6900. (Don't live in Washington state? Here's how to find your own state's insurance regulator.) You can also email us at AskMike@oic.wa.gov.

WA: Two more Exchange health plans approved for King, Pierce, Spokane counties

From a press release we put out this morning:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Sept. 4, 2013

Media contact: Public Affairs (360) 725-7055

Kreidler settles with another health insurer – approves two more Exchange plans for King, Pierce, Spokane counties

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has reached a settlement with Molina Healthcare of Washington, Inc. (Molina) and approved its two plans for sale in Washington’s Health Benefit Exchange, the Washington Healthplanfinder.

Consumers in Washington will now have 43 choices in the Exchange when open enrollment begins Oct. 1. Molina’s two plans will be available in three counties: King, Pierce and Spokane.

Previously, Molina only participated in the Medicaid market. Its approval to sell inside the new Washington Healthplanfinder guarantees Medicaid enrollees continuity of care and creates even more competition in the marketplace.

Molina was one of five companies Kreidler disapproved for sale in Washington’s new Exchange. Molina, Coordinated Care Corp., Kaiser, and Community Health Plan of Washington (CHPW) all appealed Kreidler’s decision. Molina later dropped its appeal, but reactivated it Aug. 29.

The reactivated appeal allowed a settlement. Specifically, Molina corrected information in its provider contracts to gain approval.

Kreidler began discussions with only those companies he believed could make the necessary fixes in time before the federal deadline of Sept. 5. Ten plans from Kaiser and Community Health Plan of Washington were approved Aug. 30.

The Executive Board of the Health Benefit Exchange is schedule to certify the final list of approved plans today at 1 p.m. It is scheduled to submit its final list to the federal government Sept. 5.

“I made the tough decision to disapprove some plans on July 31 because I didn’t believe they were good for consumers,” said Kreidler. “I’m pleased that we’ve reached a settlement with some of these companies to bring more quality plans to the Exchange and that consumers will be protected.”

####

Kreidler achieves settlement with health insurers - approves 10 more Exchange plans

Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has reached settlements with Community Health Plan of Washington and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest and approved their 10 plans for sale in Washington’s Health Benefit Exchange, the Washington Healthplanfinder.

 Consumers in Washington will now have 41 choices in the Exchange when open enrollment begins Oct. 1. Community Health Plan of Washington (CHPW) will have three plans available in 26 counties.

 Kaiser will offer an additional seven plans in Clark and Cowlitz counties.

 Kreidler said the additional 10 plans meet the same high standards held for the other approved companies. They also ensure continuity of care for Medicaid enrollees and create more competition in the marketplace.

 The Exchange set an initial July 31 deadline for the Insurance Commissioner’s review and approval of plans for inclusion in the Exchange, where subsidies for health coverage will be offered as part of the federal Affordable Care Act.

“We had 31 health plans approved by the Exchange’s deadline. Washington consumers now have an additional 10 quality plans to choose from,” Kreidler said.  “We took the initial deadline seriously, but we also followed our own legal process and it worked. The Exchange cannot delay any further. It must take action and approve these plans by Sept. 5.”

Read the full release.

New online tool shows you what individual health insurance costs next year in WA

We've built a new online tool to help you find out what health care plans will cost next year. Simply click on the map -- premiums vary by where you live -- and it will tell you which insurance carriers are offering coverage in your area. You can click on each company to see its rates, which vary based on your age.

A couple of caveats: These rates are mainly for the individual market, meaning people who have to buy insurance for themselves, and don't get it through an employer, Medicare, etc.

Also, the rates do factor in the subsidies that will be available to some people. Those subsidies will reduce the cost of coverage substantially for many people. You can estimate how much you'll pay, with subsidies taken into account, by using this online calculator from the Washington HealthPlanFinder.

Lastly, the list of health plans is likely to grow over the next couple of months. We are still reviewing plans, for example, for multiple insurance carriers that have filed to sell coverage outside the state exchange. And some plans that were rejected for the Exchange have filed appeals. So stay tuned.

An open letter from Mike Kreidler about insurance plans filed for Washington's exchange

An open letter from Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler

In January, the biggest changes under health care reform – or “Obamacare” – will take effect. Many health plans, which now have to comply with federal standards, will be significantly better. And hundreds of thousands of low- and middle-income Washingtonians will qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage.

This fall, Washington’s new Health Benefit Exchange will open for business, giving consumers an easy way to compare health plans, sign up, and see if they qualify for the subsidies.

Many kinds of insurance policies, before they can be sold, must be reviewed and approved by my office. This is a very important consumer protection, designed to ensure that prices are fair and that insurers can deliver on their promises.

I’m pleased to report that based on state and federal law, we were able to approve 31 health insurance plans, from four carriers, for the Exchange. People shopping on the Exchange will have broad choice and significantly better coverage, starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Unfortunately, we had to reject applications from five other insurance carriers. These were not decisions I made lightly. I am a strong supporter of competition and consumer choice, and a longtime supporter of health care reform.

As the state’s insurance regulator, however, I have a duty to protect consumers and to hold all insurers to the same standards. There were substantial problems in the plans we rejected.

Health insurers must have adequate networks of doctors and other health care providers. And there were major problems with the networks of most of the rejected plans. One didn’t offer any pediatric hospital.

Another had no approved retail pharmacy. Certain plans didn’t have adequate access to transplant surgeons, or to HIV/AIDS specialists.

One network would have required people to drive more than 45 miles to see a cardiologist, and more than 120 miles to see a gastroenterologist. That would be like living in Tacoma but having to see a doctor in Bellingham.

These were not minor technicalities. They were major problems.

Some people have pointed out that three of the carriers whose plans were rejected are currently serving people on Medicaid. They worry that people whose incomes rise, making them ineligible for Medicaid, will have difficulty moving to a regular commercial plan, or would lose important continuity of care offered by the community clinics. Many of these community clinics offer important services, such as language assistance or transportation.

Rest assured: The plans I approved for the Exchange include a substantial number of community clinics throughout the state. In many cases, Medicaid patients who want to remain with the same clinic will be able to.

The Affordable Care Act requires all carriers participating in the Exchange to contract with an adequate number of “Essential Community Providers,” or ECPs. These are defined as health care providers that serve high-risk, special needs and underserved individuals. Many Sea Mar clinics, for example, have contracts with the commercial carriers who were approved for the Exchange.

My staff and I worked very hard to try to get all carriers and all plans across the finish line in time. We had dozens of meetings, and 14 webinars to try to walk them through the process. I called one CEO after another, laying out the key issues and timelines. On the final night, July 31, we had staff waiting at their desks until midnight, in order to give the companies every possible minute to succeed.

But some carriers – particularly those new to the commercial insurance market -- simply couldn’t meet the standards this time.

We knew this first big year of health reform implementation would be a bumpy ride, and it has been. But I remain optimistic about the future. We will continue to work with all carriers to help them get ready for the next year, when I fully expect more insurers to succeed.

In the meantime, consumers have a broad number of choices. The insurance is meaningful, the networks robust, the subsidies significant. Again, the process has been bumpy. But it’s a very promising start.

Mike Kreidler

Insurance Commissioner

DOL Teams Up With Vermont on the Latest ERISA Preemption Attack

The practice of individual states enacting laws that arguably infringe on ERISA preemption is not new.  In fact, some states have become increasingly creative in poking and prodding at the limits of this federal law, which has raised obvious concerns among those involved in the self-insurance marketplace.  (See previous blog posts commenting on the Michigan health care claims tax.)

A new twist worth reporting on is the fact that the Department of Labor has apparently decided to take a more hands-on (political) role in shaping the evolving legal landscape, positioning the agency as a powerful accomplice in the effort to make self-insurance a more challenging risk management strategy.

 This intent was demonstrated last month by the DOL’s decision to file an Amicus brief in the case of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Susan L. Dorgan, in her Capacity as the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Regulation.  The case is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

 At issue is whether Vermont’s Health Care Database” statute is preempted by ERISA.  Among other things, the statute requires health insurers, providers, facilities and government agencies to “file reports, data, schedules, statistics, or other information determined by the commissioner.”  The term “health insurer” is defined broadly to include any administrator of a self-insured group health plans, including third party administrators and pharmacy benefit managers.

The purpose of these requirements is to enable the state to build a comprehensive database it believes is necessary in order to effectively carry out health care administration functions.   Liberty Mutual, a self-insured employer, refused to provide the requested data.  The company subsequently sued the state, arguing that the collection and reporting of the requested data created administrative burdens for the plans, therefore triggering ERISA preemption.

Siding with the state, a federal trial court judge granted summary judgment, finding that the Vermont law did not affect ERISA plan administration and further concluding that it was appropriate for the state to regulate in this area.

Admittedly, ERISA preemption law can be complicated and highly technical in many cases.  In this regard, to be charitable, we suppose that a good faith argument could be made the requirements set forth  in this stature do not, in fact, affect plan administration so criticism of the state should be put in proper context – a disagreement on legal and policy grounds.

The DOL’s participation is another matter.  By putting its large thumb on the scale, an ambitious political agenda is exposed for those who care to notice.

As the agency primarily responsible for administrating and enforcing ERISA, DOL has historically defended the law’s broad federal preemption provisions.   But with its provocative interpretation that Vermont is essentially regulating the business of insurance (the key exception to ERISA preemption), DOL has clearly signaled it has changed course, presumably to support the Administration’s implicit objective of squeezing the private health care marketplace when possible and where few people are watching.

We commented recently that Tom Perez’s nomination as secretary of DOL portended a more political agency.  Given that he was subsequently confirmed after this Amicus brief was filed, his fingerprints aren’t on this one but it can be reasonably concluded that under his watch the DOL will continue to back Vermont if the case is ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

And so it goes.  A huge federal bureaucracy quietly imposes the Administration’s political will in ways too nuanced to attract attention.  But that’s where the real action is.

Auto insurance and pizza delivery

We get a lot of calls from parents -- and usually those calls are after the fact, unfortunately -- about whether their child delivering pizzas needs additional auto coverage.

Sorry, but the answer's usually yes. Most personal auto insurance policies won't cover you if you're getting paid to use your own car to transport people or property for business purposes.

In general, you'll need to buy a business or commercial auto insurance policy if you are a health care worker who occasionally uses your own car to take clients to appointments. The same is true if you use your own car to deliver flowers, newspapers, pizzas, etc.

If you have questions about your coverage -- and policies do differ -- contact your agent or insurance company directly.

Health insurance questions: Preventive colonoscopies and polyps

Until fairly recently, when consumers had routine preventive colonoscopies, they often faced a substantial bill for surgery if a polyp was discovered and removed during the procedure. But current guidelines from the U.S. Department of Labor, under the Affordable Care Act, protect consumers from these extra charges for polyp removal.

Q5: If a colonoscopy is scheduled and performed as a screening procedure pursuant to the USPSTF recommendation, is it permissible for a plan or issuer to impose cost-sharing for the cost of a polyp removal during the colonoscopy? 

No. Based on clinical practice and comments received from the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, polyp removal is an integral part of a colonoscopy. Accordingly, the plan or issuer may not impose cost-sharing with respect to a polyp removal during a colonoscopy performed as a screening procedure. On the other hand, a plan or issuer may impose cost-sharing for a treatment that is not a recommended preventive service, even if the treatment results from a recommended preventive service.

In addition, the federal guidelines help people with a family history that put them in a high risk group for certain diseases. They will now be able to get more frequent preventive care without additional costs.

Q7: Some USPSTF recommendations apply to certain populations identified as high-risk. Some individuals, for example, are at increased risk for certain diseases because they have a family or personal history of the disease. It is not clear, however, how a plan or issuer would identify individuals who belong to a high-risk population. How can a plan or issuer determine when a service should or should not be covered without cost-sharing? 

Identification of "high-risk" individuals is determined by clinical expertise. Decisions regarding whether an individual is part of a high-risk population, and should therefore receive a specific preventive item or service identified for those at high-risk, should be made by the attending provider. Therefore, if the attending provider determines that a patient belongs to a high-risk population and a USPSTF recommendation applies to that high-risk population, that service is required to be covered in accordance with the requirements of the interim final regulations (that is, without cost-sharing, subject to reasonable medical management).

If you're having problems with your health insurer over these sorts of issues and you live in Washington state, feel free to contact our consumer hotline at 1-800-562-6900 or email us. 

WA Supreme Court: Insurer can be held liable for agent's actions

In a case that’s been closely watched by the insurance industry, Washington’s State Supreme Court on Thursday affirmedthat insurers are liable for the illegal actions of their agents.

“The ruling is a big win for consumers,” said Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, whose decision the case was challenging. “If you allow someone to do business on your behalf, it only stands to reason that you can be held responsible for what they do.”

The case involved violations of the state’s insurance laws in 2006 and 2007 by an insurance agency appointed by Chicago Title Insurance Company. That agency, Land Title Co. of Kitsap County, Inc. repeatedly offered illegal inducements to get business. The violations included illegally “wining and dining” real estate agents, builders and mortgage lenders with free meals, donations for a golf tournament, monthly advertising, and Seattle Seahawks playoff game tickets.

Although Land Title was Chicago Title’s exclusive agent in the Washington counties at issue in the case, Chicago Title argued that it was not responsible for its agent’s actions. In a consent order signed in 2009, the company agreed to pay a $48,334 fine if it did not prevail in court.

“Chicago Title’s arguments were contrary to a century of insurance law,” said Kreidler. “In order to effectively regulate insurers and protect consumers, it’s important to hold insurers responsible for the actions of their agents.”

Title insurance practices have long been a concern to Kreidler, whose office in 2005 scrutinized 18 months of employee expense reports and ledgers for the largest title companies in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. The examination found many cases in which the companies were providing gifts, golf tournament sponsorships, parties, ski trips, sports tickets, meals and other inducements to get business.

“Few people shop for title insurance, although they certainly can,” said Kreidler. “It tends to be included in the large stack of documents that homeowners are handed to sign. So title companies and others in the industry are positioned to steer business to particular insurers.”

New rules took effect in March 2009, clearly outlining what can be given. There are limits on advertising, donations to trade associations, meals, training, leasing workspace and gifts.

Agent charged with theft and forgery; collected commissions for fictitious customers

A former Vancouver insurance agent has been charged with theft and forgery for allegedly collecting about $15,000 in commissions by creating fictitious applicants for insurance policies.

Julie Anne Goss, 43, an independent agent for AFLAC, was arraigned last week in Clark County Superior Court.

The scam came to light after the owner of a restaurant in Battle Ground, Wash. told AFLAC that she’d received premium bills for two “employees” that had never worked there. 

AFLAC investigated, and it turned out that Goss wrote dozens of policies for 15 people that either weren’t employees at the named businesses or apparently didn’t exist. In other cases, she wrote policies for real employees, but they said they hadn't applied for the coverage.

In each case, Goss stood to get a commission for the policy. All told, the investigator found, between August 2010 and January 2011, Goss wrote 91 fraudulent insurance policies and collected more than $15,000 in commissions for them.

The company canceled its contract with Goss in March 2011 and reported the matter to our Special Investigations Unit. After investigating further, we revoked Goss’ insurance license in January 2012. The charges against her were filed in late June.
If you suspect insurance fraud and you live in Washington state, please report it.

How to find an old life insurance policy (and other unclaimed property)

We get a lot of queries from people looking for old life insurance policies that they think might have named them as a beneficiary.

Here are some quick tips. For more specifics and links, please see our brand-new "how to find an old life insurance policy" web page.

• Try to track down as much information as possible. You'll presumably know the name of the policyholder (any name changes?), and it also helps to know the state or states that the person lived in.

• Ideally, you'll be able to locate a copy of the policy itself, which will have a number on it. But sometimes there's a wrinkle: the insurance company or its name may have changed, especially for older policies. That can be a challenge, but your state's insurance department can probably help you track down the current company information. If you live in Washington state -- we're the state insurance regulator there -- feel free to call us at 1-800-562-6900 and talk to our consumer advocacy staff.

• If you can't find the policy, try going through the person's financial records, looking for payments made to an insurer. Also, look through old mail: the company may have sent periodic statements or billing reminders. It's also worth checking with the person's auto- or homeowners insurers, since people sometimes buy life insurance from the same company.

• You could opt to pay a search company to run a check for the person's name through industry databases or send queries to a large number of insurers.

• If a policy goes unclaimed for a long time, insurers are supposed to turn the money over to state-run unclaimed property programs. They hold the money, often forever, in case someone files a claim. You can easily run the person's name through these free, state-run online search sites. Washington state's is at http://ucp.dor.wa.gov, and you can easily find other state's unclaimed property programs at www.unclaimed.org.

• One other important tip: Many life insurance policies automatically end at a certain age.  

COBRA and Medicare: How to avoid a common (and costly) mistake

If you're continuing your employer health coverage through COBRA and you become eligible for Medicare, it's important for you to sign up for Medicare during your Medicare eligibility period.

Here's why: Health insurers generally include language in their policies that says they can refuse to pay bills if they find out that you stayed on COBRA coverage after you were eligible for Medicare.

A lot of consumers get caught in this trap. Many people who are on COBRA don't know that they should sign up for Medicare when they become eligible. Instead, they assume that COBRA will continue to pay their medical bills, so they delaying signing up for Medicare until their COBRA coverage ends.

Then, months after becoming eligible for Medicare, they find out that their COBRA plan is refusing to pay for medical care that the consumer already received. They can't backdate their Medicare enrollment, so they're stuck with those medical bills. Yikes.

Don't get caught in this trap. If you're on COBRA and become eligible for Medicare, sign up.

"My doctor says I need a treatment, but my insurer won't cover it. What can I do?"

Q: "My doctor says that I need a particular medical treatment, but my health insurance company won't cover the cost. Is there anything I can do?"

A: Yes, there definitely is. Contact your health insurer, tell them you want to file an appeal, and ask what you need to do to start the process.

Then collect materials to support your argument, such as letters from your doctors describing why this is the best treatment for you, any medical journal articles or studies showing the treatment's effectiveness, etc.

You may also want to point out the health problems that will or can arise if the company doesn't pay for the treatment. Be sure to provide and estimate of the costs of treating those problems, especially if those costs would be significantly higher than paying for the treatment.

After you send in your appeal to your insurer, don't give up. Most people don't win the first round, but the odds of winning increase as you reach higher levels of appeals. The change of winning is highest when your appeal reaches the final level, called an "independent review organization."

For more tips on appeals, including templates, sample letters and detailed pointers, please see the appeals section of our website or call our consumer advocates at 1-800-562-6900. (If you live in a state other than Washington, please contact your own state's insurance department.)

Statement on U.S. House vote re: delaying the individual mandate

Note: The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would delay for a year the individual mandate requiring most Americans to have health coverage starting in 2014. The penalty for not having coverage next year would be $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater.

Statement from Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler:

“Delaying the mandate would be unwise. This is an issue of personal responsibility. It’s unfair for people who can afford coverage to not have it, and to expect the rest of us to cover the cost of their care if they become seriously sick or injured. ”
“A critical part of the Affordable Care Act was the provision requiring that insurers take all applicants. No more screening out people because they have pre-existing medical conditions. But to make that work, you have to have as many people as possible in the insurance pool.
“Without an individual mandate to have coverage, people would likely just buy insurance when they knew they needed it. That’s like letting people get homeowners insurance only when their house catches fire.”

More states asking insurers if they're ready for climate change

From a press release we just sent out:

Insurance companies are facing growing scrutiny over their preparedness for climate change, an issue that could potentially affect insurance affordability and availability.

“I’m very pleased to see more states joining this effort,” said Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. “Being prepared is clearly in the best interests of both insurers and the families and businesses they insure.”

Last year, insurance regulators in Washington, California and New York surveyed major insurers about what steps they’re taking to address risks to their underwriting and investment portfolios.

This year, regulators in Connecticut and Minnesota have also joined the survey.

“Climate change is a potential game-changer for insurers,” said Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler. “We want to make sure that this issue is on their radar.”

Climate change poses a double challenge to insurers. Extreme weather events and droughts, for example, can sharply increase claims. Climate-related issues could also have a significant effect on insurers’ investments, potentially affecting their long-term ability to pay claims.

“Unprepared insurers are much more likely to simply pull out of markets, leaving homeowners and businesses struggling to find alternative coverage,” said Kreidler, who chairs the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ working group on climate change. “And when insurers abandon a market, government tends to end up as the insurer of last resort.”

Kreidler’s office has been surveying insurers on this issue since 2008.

“I wish some companies were further along,” said Kreidler, “but I’m encouraged to see that a growing number of companies are taking steps to incorporate climate change into their risk modeling and investment considerations.”

For a look at past surveys and responses for Washington, California and New York, please see California’s Climate Risk Disclosure Survey web page.

TRIA Captives and Republican Politics

With the current version of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) set to expire at the end of next year unless Congress takes affirmative action to extend it, one thing has become clear already: the politics are complicated.   More specifically, the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives appears to be divided as to whether the federal government should continue to play a role in the private insurance marketplace.

Those with an interest in the continued viability of TRIA captives should pay attention because this is shaping up to be a very fluid and uncertain legislative process.  But before getting too far into the political weeds, a quick historical refresher would probably be helpful.

TRIA was first passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis in 2002 with the intent of helping to stabilize the property insurance marketplace in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.   The Act created a reinsurance program providing for a federal backstop for industry losses exceeding $100 million per year connected with future terrorist attacks.

The program details are that 85% of insured losses would be paid by the federal government after an insurer meets a deductible of 20% of annual premiums.    For losses up to $27.5 billion, the Treasury Department will collect 133% of payouts through surcharges on property/casualty policies.  Regulators have been given discretion to develop specifics to recoup payouts in access of $27.5 billion.

The Act was extended without much opposition in 2005 and 2007 so what’s different this time around?  Those votes were cast prior to the 2010 congressional election, which swept into office many “Tea Party” Republicans and Democratic control was upended in the House.

There is no shortage of commentary with regard to whether or not the growing influence of these small government true believers within the House Republican Caucus is good for the party over the longer term so this blog will refrain from offering similar political commentary.

What we can say with some certainty is the emerging debate over TRIA re-authorization is exposing the same type of divide among Tea Party and “establishment” Republicans that has been seen repeatedly over the past three years on high profile legislation.  Sometimes the party coalesced and other times it did not.

The current TRIA extension legislation (H.R. 508) is now pending in the House Financial Services Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX).    While a member of the party leadership, his conservative political orientation more often than not synchs with the Tea Party Caucus.

Clearing Hensarling’s committee is the first step to final enactment, but while the congressman has not explicitly ruled out moving the legislation, he has signaled real skepticism of maintaining the federal government’s role in the private insurance market, even in the cases of terrorism.

In recent meetings with Republican members of the committee (most of whom were not in Congress when the law was originally passed in 2002), industry lobbyists have confirmed conflicting positions.   Some acknowledge that practical marketplace realities dictate the extension, while others have indicated they will oppose the legislation, citing the overriding priority of reducing the size and scope of the federal government.  For their part, House Democrats are mostly sitting back at this point while the Republican politics play out.   

Obviously there is still quite a bit of time on the game clock for congressional action and political ideology could very well yield to practical realities, but it’s risky to simply assume another TRIA extension will be pro forma.   After all, if Congress can go to the brink over raising the debt ceiling, tax hikes and budget sequesters, why should we think that H.R. 508 will be pushed over the finish line by the tailwind from previous years?

 

ACA Gobbles Up Self-Insurance Marketplace One Bite at a Time

This week’s announcement that the ACA’s employer-mandate provision has been postponed has understandably gotten a lot of attention.  It’s a big deal for sure, but while federal regulators punted on this high profile provision, they demonstrated no such caution with the release of two sets of final rules over the past week that will have the likely effect of eroding the self-insurance marketplace.

So while everyone is talking about the employer-mandate development, it’s important to interject some exclusive reporting and commentary regarding separate finalized ACA rules related to contraceptive coverage and student health plans to demonstrate how self-insurance options are being quietly restricted in certain market segments.

The rule-making process for contraceptive coverage has certainly attracted much attention over the past two years, but this blog is agnostic regarding the ongoing religious liberty debate that dominates the headlines.   We have, however, been very interested in how the final rules will affect self-insured religious organizations, of which there are many.

As some may recall, when the controversy originally erupted over the prospect of religious organizations being forced to provide coverage for contraceptive coverage, Obama’s political operatives quickly hatched a plan: insurance companies would be required to include this coverage at no cost to the religious organizations.

Notwithstanding the fact that this accommodation failed to satisfy religious liberty objections, the White House overlooked the fact that a large percentage of religious organizations operate self-insured group health plans, so the suggested insurance company fix would not apply to these plans.

Faced with this realization, regulators have floated various proposals during the rule-making process on how self-insured religious organizations can comply with the law.  Most of these proposals have been variations on the theme of forcing third party administrators to take responsibility for coordinating such coverage. 

For good measure, regulators offered a closing comment in the proposed rules essentially saying that such organizations can always convert to fully-insured arrangements if self-insurance is no longer viable.  You have to appreciate such bureaucratic thoughtfulness.

Based on the final rules released last week, it appears that the viability of self-insured plans will be significantly compromised.  At issue is that regulators are forcing TPAs to serve as plan fiduciaries solely for the purpose of arranging separate contraceptive coverage for plan participants.

Industry stakeholders have raised numerous concerns that such an approach is legally questionable and would expose TPAs to a variety of legal liability scenarios.  But the regulators flatly rejected these comments, asserting that “the Department of Labor’s view that is has the legal authority to require the third party administrator to become the plan administrator under ERISA section 3(16) for the sole purpose of providing payments for contraceptive services if the third party administrator agrees to enter into or remain in a contractual relationship with the eligible organization to provide administrative services for the plan.”  

Already acutely sensitive to potential fiduciary designations outside of the ACA context, it’s a reasonable conclusion that at least some TPAs will consider the new rules to be a tipping point, forcing them to part ways with their religious organization clients, which in turn will make it more difficult for such organizations to maintain their self-insured plans.

In separate news, CMS published the final rule last week clarifying exemptions to the individual mandate requirement in as provided for in the ACA.  As part of this, the rule also contained the final language on which "non-insurance” programs will be considered minimum essential coverage (MEC) for purposes of satisfying the mandate.

The earlier, proposed version of the rule had included self-funded student health plans in the list of allowable MECs.  Under the final version of the rule, however, self-funded student plans will only be considered MEC for plan years beginning before December 31, 2014.  After that date, such plans will have to apply to CMS to maintain the exemption.

Given the explicit goal of the Administration to steer as many young and healthy individuals into the exchanges as possible, this blog is highly skeptical that such exemptions will be forthcoming.  And of course, the real effect of this rule won’t be felt until after the 2014 elections. 

We’ll concede the fact that student health plans and religious organizations do not represent major segments of the overall self-insurance marketplace, but they are viable segments that are being quietly gobbled up by the bureaucracy.    So while everyone understandably is now talking about the employer-mandate delay, much of the real action continues to be in the details of the highly technical ACA implementation rules that cannot be easily distilled by the media nor understood by most health care reform observers.

 

 

 

Health Care Claims Tax to Live on in Michigan

Some fresh reporting from Michigan indicates that there is still quite a bit of certainty ahead for a health care tax scheme with big ERISA preemption considerations as it ropes in self-insured group health plans.  (See 11/23/12 blog post for prior reporting on this subject.)

While industry observers wait on a federal appeals court to rule on whether the state state’s Health Insurance Claims Act (HICA) violates federal law, there is one open question that appears to be settled, which is that the tax will not sunset at the end of the year as originally intended.

Governor Snyder is expected to sign legislation (SB 335) as early as this week that will extend the sunset provision for four years.  So this “temporary” tax sure has a permanent feel to it.

A proposal to hike the one percent tax was stripped from the legislation but that does not necessarily mean that it not going happen.  That’s because the Legislature has finalized the state’s 2013-2014 budget assuming $400 million in revenue coming from the HICA tax. 

The problem is that number likely overestimates revenue by at least $130 million based on the current year’s tax receipts.  Legislators hope to fill this revenue gap by tweaking the state’s no fault auto insurance system and related new vehicle fees, but if this is not done by October, they will be forced to pass what is known as a “negative supplemental appropriates bill” and the heat with again be on again to increase the HICA tax.

 And keep in mind that there is a two-to-one match from the federal government for all state revenue raise through the HICA tax, so a multiplier effect is in play, which further intensifies the pressure to maintain and increase the tax.  That said, It is sometimes easy to tune out when reading about predictable legislative maneuvering and lose focus on the real world implications, so let’s do that quickly now.

Last year, this blog spoke to a major multi-self-insured employer based on Michigan to gage how they have adapted to the HICA tax.   The response regarding the economic affect was largely expected – essentially that it raised the cost of doing business but that it has not prompted them to reconsider being self-insured.

 Their response regarding the compliance administrative burden was more telling.  While they have been able to figure how to comply with the law, if similar tax schemes pop up in other states the administrative burden will not grow incrementally, but rather exponentially and will force them to take another look at whether self-insurance is still the best option for them.  That’s compelling.

Absence intervention by a federal appeals court, it will be interesting to see whether this ERISA preemption assault can be quarantined with the Michigan state lines. 

Labor Department Pick Signals New Concern for Self-Insurance Industry

The announcement today that President Obama has nominated Tom Perez as the next Secretary of Labor arguably sets the stage for a strong federal push to restrict the ability of thousands of employers nationwide from sponsoring self-insured group health plans.

This provocative conclusion requires the connection of several dots, so we’ll lay them out for your consideration.

As this blog has reported previously, federal regulators have been asking lots of questions about self-insured group plans since the passage of the ACA.  More specifically, they are trying to determine whether smaller self-insured employers that purchase stop-loss insurance with “low” attachment points constitute a “loophole” to the health care law and that these employers are somehow “gaming” the system.

We’ve methodically discredited these assertions multiple times, but it’s important to set the stage as new developments are reported and additional context is provided.

Since insurance is largely regulated at the state level, the obvious question arises regarding how the feds can regulate stop-loss insurance should they wish to do so?  This can clearly be done through federal legislation or potentially through regulation. 

The regulatory route is more complicated as the ACA does not provide any explicit statutory authority for such action.  But regulators can be a creative bunch, especially under the current Administration.

The creative theory is that federal agencies with jurisdiction over the Public Health Services Act (PHSA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) may rely on the their general rule-making authority given to them under their respective laws to argue that the federal government may indeed need to regulate stop-loss insurance and re-characterize stop-loss policies with “low” attachment points as “health insurance” through regulations separate and apart from the new law. 

While this action would be controversial and subject to challenge by Congress and private citizens, it is possible that a rule-making process could be initiated to achieve this policy objective.

Based on discussion with key regulators as recently as last week, such a rule-making process is unlikely to occur this year.  This blog speculates that the primary consideration for inaction at this point is that regulators are simply overwhelmed with finalizing all of the rules and related guidance required for full ACA implementation at the end of this year.

Once these deadlines pass, however, the regulators will have more bandwidth to circle back on ancillary areas of interest.  Here’s where we connect the dot with Mr. Perez’ name on it.

While the career professional staffers within DOL (non-political appointees) are competent and at least reasonably objective in most cases, the new agency head is anything but.

Mr. Perez comes with baggage from his tenure within the Justin Department where evidence strongly suggests that at least some of his civil rights enforcement decisions were influenced by political considerations.   In short, he a “social justice” guy who fits nicely into the Administration’s template for policy-making.

His resume also includes a stint with HHS under the Clinton Administration and a senior staff position with the late Senator Ted Kennedy.  Rounding out his big government pedigree, he is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the George Washington Public School of Health.

All of this background suggests that Mr. Perez will be inclined to position DOL as a more activist agency with regard to health care reform issues, including stop-loss insurance regulation.   This motivation will likely be particularly acute if the SHOP exchanges run into early problems with lack of enrollment as many experts predict.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume this analysis is correct.  In this case, then Secretary Perez could push for a rule-making process as described earlier, or perhaps lead an effort to close the self-insurance “loophole” through federal legislation.  Let’s connect another dot.

As a technical matter this would a “cleaner” approach and not subject to legal challenge.   Congress could simply enact legislation amending the definition of “health insurance” under the PHSA, ERISA and the Code to include, for example stop-loss policies with a “low” attachment point.

Given that Republicans control the House right now and are generally supportive of self-insurance, the politics do not support this potential strategy.   But if you believe recent public commentaries that the Administration’s grand political plan is focused on the objective of Democrats winning back control of the House in 2014, the legislative pathway becomes clearer. 

Und this scenario, it’s hard to imagine that a Secretary Perez would not push for a legislative “fix.”  After all, it’s not fair that some citizens are saved from the exchanges in favor of receiving quality health benefits from their employers, right?   Social justice, indeed. 

And the last dot is connected.

 

 

The Coming Crossroads for LRRA Legislation

It’s been a while since we’ve reported on efforts to modernize the Liability Risk Retention Act through federal legislation, but there may be some new developments this spring worth discussing.

A key congressional source confirmed today that draft legislation is currently being vetted in the House prior to potential introduction in the next month or two.  While previous versions of the bill included a federal arbitration provision to address situations where non-domiciliary regulators take actions against RRGs operating in their state that should be preempted by the LRRA, this provision will not be included in this year’s bill if it introduced.

This is largely a political consideration, as the chairman of the House Financial Services is extremely sensitive about any legislation that can be viewed as expanding the role of the federal government in the regulation of insurance.   This blog takes the contrary view in that such a provision actually strengthens the home state regulator, but the politics are what they are.

With the arbitration provision stripped out, the main focus of the bill will be to allow RRGs to write commercial property coverage.  In anticipation of this expected development, several captive insurance leaders were polled to take their temperature on the relative importance of such a change to the LRRA.

The feedback was mixed evidenced by the sampling of responses as follows:

On The One Hand….

“I think ART as an industry needs as many tools as possible in the toolbox and any victory we can get, however small, is a step in the right direction.”

“I would like to see this pass because people keep thinking this only expands to commercial property – not so – it would allow auto physical damage.”

On the Other Hand….

“I’m of the opinion that RRGs time as a viable ART risk funding mechanism is waning.  I say this because of the NAIC’s accelerating aggressiveness in its attempt to impose governance standards on RRG domiciliary states equal to or greater than those imposed on traditional insurance companies.”

“Even with reinsurance backing the level of property risk undertaken by an RRG is not likely to create the beneficial impact for RRG members compared to the liability segment.”

 

So for an industry that can be apathetic when it comes to federal legislative/regulatory developments, even when everyone is in agreement, it will be interesting to see if any meaningful support materializes if/when LRRA legislation version 2.0 is introduced given differing opinions on the relative importance.

Given that the probability of a 3.0 version anytime in the foreseeable future is close to zero, get ready for the crossroads.