Simply Junior

Welcome to 2010. Look around the states. Yes, they all have different perils for drivers to face. For some, it’s the weather with snow and ice making driving dangerous during winter. In others, it’s hurricanes and tornados. But leaving aside all the different types of peril, there’s one big problem for everyone with a vehicle on the road. All the major insurers are pressing for rate hikes. State Farm, Allstate and Geico have been leading the charge. And we are not just talking hikes of one or two percent. In Florida, for example, State Farm is raising rates by an average of 9.2%, while Allstate went for a shock-and-awe average of 16%. Even though the recession is slowly easing, the US is facing the highest levels of unemployment seen for decades. Rate increases like these hurt everyone struggling to make ends meet. Is this just gouging by the insurers? Like the Wall Street bankers, are they only interested in their bonuses? Should we think of insurance companies as the new carpetbaggers, using political influence to their own crooked ends? Just why are the insurers making such egregious demands for more money when most of us are down and out?

Lining up the questions like this gives little chance of answers favorable to the insurers. Does that make us biased? Hell, yes! Increases like this when the economy is on the bottom will only lead to more people driving without insurance. As more drop out of the legal framework, the premiums rise for the rest of us. The costs stay the same. They are just divided among fewer insured drivers. Worse, we now have to add additional uninsured and underinsured coverage. It costs more for those who want to stay legal on the road. Are there any justifications for these increases? Well, if you ask a talking-head for the insurance industry, the blame gets spread around. We start off with the rise in the cost of medical treatment. It seems the healthcare services have all been hiking their charges to treat those injured in traffic accidents. Evidence? Well, following very public contract disputes in California and Connecticut, we now have the stand-off between United Healthcare and Continuum Health Partners in New York. The hospitals want increases. The insurer is asking for cuts of between 7 and 10%. In these circumstances, the insurers are actually standing up for their policy holders. If healthcare costs can be reduced or held stable, premiums can also be stabilized.

The really big problem, however, is whether the insurers can pay all the claims we make. The insurers have low capital reserves. Why are the reserves so low? Well, it’s back to the recession. When the insurers collect in the premiums, the money is invested until it’s needed to pay out the claims. Just as our 401k investments have taken a big hit, the insurers suddenly found their investments had lost value. Now, the state Insurance Departments are insisting the capital be replaced. In some states, the insurers have agreed to reduce the number of people they insure. In the rest, the premiums are to rise. This means, no matter where you live, it’s going to be harder to find cheap auto insurance. Harder does not mean impossible. Using the search engine on this site, you can still find cheap car insurance, but you may have to look more carefully at the discounts on offer and accept a higher deductible. This may not all be the fault of the insurers, but it sure feels like it.

This February, the Department of Health and Human Resources has issued a report identifying an alarming trend for insurance companies to seek premium rate increases. This is not limited to one or two states. This is not limited to one or two percentage increases in the rates. This is all the leading insurance companies asking for the right to significantly higher premiums: in Michigan hikes of 56%, in California hikes of 39%, and so on. If this only affected small numbers of policyholders, it might have passed unnoticed. But, with millions of policyholders affected across the country, these rate increase requests have attracted the full scrutiny of the federal government. Secretary Sibelius has been leading the attack, using the requests to push the reform agenda forward.

Because of the national anger, some companies have paused. WellPoint had proposed the increases take effect from March 1. Any increases, even if approved by the states, will now be delayed until May at the earliest. This decision is partly in response to the summons of WellPoint’s chief executive officer to Washington to justify the requested increases. Insurance companies find themselves in a difficult political situation. Their management teams accept a duty to maximize profits for the benefit of the stockholders. They look around at an America seriously affected by the recession. Increasing numbers of people are unable to afford the premiums, some because of unemployment, others because of a squeeze on credit. More worrying from the insurance industry is that more healthy people are deciding not to insure at all. This means the group of people left holding policies has a higher percentage of those with existing health problems. Without more healthy people in the group paying premiums and not claiming, it becomes more expensive to insure those less healthy people who remain. It is also a verified fact that hospitals and healthcare service professionals have also been increasing their fees and charges. The pharmaceutical companies have increased the price of almost all the most commonly used drugs. The insurance industry is under pressure from both sides. As Secretary Sibelius points out, however, this is not a completely accurate picture. Every year, insurance companies are required to submit reports to all the US states in which they are licensed to sell policies. This data shows many companies actually increased the number of policyholders during 2009.

The market in health insurance plans is complicated by the political situation. Democrats and Republicans are two armies unable to agree a truce long enough for some reform to be made. As it stands, there is no immediate likelihood that medical costs will be controlled. If the costs continue to rise faster than inflation, insurers will have no choice other than increasing their premiums. If they do not, they will not have enough cash in hand to pay out on all the claims. This means, for the average person, it will become increasingly difficult to find cheap health insurance. For those with a pre-existing condition, group health insurance will be the only option but, for those plans, premiums are rising at their fastest rates. For years, it has been obvious that the healthcare industry is broken. It would be ironic if, having come this close to some meaningful reforms, we not only saw the reform bills lost in Washington, but also found every major insurer imposing massive premium increases. That really would be the final nail in the coffin.

The market for insurance in the US is somewhat unusual. In most every other line of business, companies are allowed to compete with each other across state lines. This helps to keep pricing and the quality of the product to higher levels and protect the consumer. But, the insurance industry is licensed and regulated state-by-state. There’s no such thing as a federal insurance policy. You have to buy a policy written by a company licensed in the state where you live. This is frustrating because, if you live near the border, your friends and colleagues at work probably tell you how little they pay or complain you have the better deals. Either way, it’s not very fair. Worse, the companies often decide not to set up in all fifty states, but pick and choose where they will operate. The result is that many states only have a small number of licensed insurance companies. Because there is no real competition, their premium rates tend to be high. This produces a big political divide. In Republican states, this is the free market at work and no intervention is necessary. If you do not like this, move to another state which has lower rates. In Democratic states, there is more interest in protecting consumer interests. Some states have intervened in their local markets to introduce “managed competition”. Needless to say, this has outraged the insurance industry and the insurance agents who survive on the commission earned from the insurers. There have been heated debates between the lawmakers. Where the local Department or Office of Insurance has produced new rules, they have been referred to the local courts. Who would have thought helping millions of average people to save money on their premium rates would produce so much heat.

Anyway, the latest state to surface in this national debate is Massachusetts. In some ways, this state is also slightly nonstandard because of the dominance of the local agents who handle about 80% of the insurance business. Agents have more to lose if the markets are opened up to competition (and sites like this offer a direct line to insurance companies without having to go through an agent). Not surprisingly, they have been the fastest to the courts in the fight to protect their income. We have just had the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on two rule changes made by the state’s Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes (she has since retired to a university post). Let’s start with the effect of the move to open up the state to competition. Before the rule changes, there were nineteen insurers writing auto insurance policies. Twelve more companies have now entered the markets. In most cases, premium rates have been stable as insurers cut their costs and accepted a reduced profit. But agents have been hit because the opportunities to earn commission have been reduced.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has supported the reforms, finding the effect of managed competition is sufficiently beneficial that it should represent the prevailing public policy in the state. Put another way, the judges think the many consumers should pay less rather than the few corporate officers and stockholders earn excessive profits. Because one of the agent’s automatic rights to a commission has disappeared, they will be looking to recover their losses in other ways. There are two morals to this story. The first is that, if you want to find cheap auto insurance, support the lawmakers in those states who promise to introduce more competition into the car insurance market. Secondly, always get your auto insurance quotes through a site like this and avoid agents who earn commission.

The lawmakers in Colorado are debating a change in the law to correct the gender discrimination currently requiring women to pay more than men to insure their health. The facts are uncompromising. In some 90% of all private health plans, women have premium rates 60% higher than men. This is so even though the statistics show women enjoy better health than men and make fewer claims. This is so even though the men used for comparative purposes are significantly older. And, if you feel you need any more confirmation of the basic unfairness, even men who smoke pay less than female non-smokers. As one of the women promoting the bill commented: insurers often refuse coverage because the applicant has a pre-existing condition. The way the premiums are loaded, it seems being a woman is a pre-existing condition.

The people who are paid to speak on behalf of the insurance industry usually fall back on the tried and trusted defense that women have medical needs specific to their gender. The most often quoted example is maternity and prenatal care. Ignoring the fact that men also have problems specific to their gender, such as erectile dysfunction, women are still quoted premiums 60% higher on policies excluding reproductive health needs. In other words, the discrimination persists even though the scope of the medical coverage is identical. So what’s going on? The answer, in this instance, is slightly complicated. If we start with auto insurance, it’s common knowledge that young men are statistically more likely than any other group of drivers to crash into another vehicle or some stationary object. Thus, where the policy discriminates between different groups of drivers, young men pay significantly more than women who tend to drive more safely. Not all auto policies do discriminate. By spreading the risk among a big group of drivers, the good subsidize the bad. But, most auto insurers do set different premium rates for different groups of drivers distinguished by gender and age. In medicine, it’s a fact that men fall ill and die, whereas women tend to recover from illnesses. This is one of the reasons why women have a longer life expectancy than men. But it also explains why women cost more. They survive for longer with chronic problems requiring continuing treatment. Thus, if the premium is a reflection of the likely costs of treatment over a person’s lifetime, it may appear slightly more reasonable to charge women higher premiums. Except this ignores the general rule that private health insurance stops at 65 as Medicare kicks in. The major long-term costs tend to occur after 65.

Colorado looks as though it may join the one or two other states with equality provisions. There’s no evidence from these other states that men now have to pay significantly more. For now, insurers simply make less profit. As a woman, it’s particularly important to research exactly what the different companies offer. Because of this, searching for cheap health insurance is a greater challenge. Always refer to the websites of the companies making the best quotes to see if there are additional discounts available or special policies for women. If there seems to be no cheap health insurance available, talk directly with the insurers to see whether the difference between the male and female premium rates can be reduced. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a state committed to equality. It is for you to protect yourself as best as possible.