Transparency is a big part of the federal law, “yet I don’t see that embedded as part of this rule,” said Diane Brown, executive director of Arizona Public Interest Research Group.

The trigger for the federally-required reviews is a proposed rate increase of 10% or more.

And like now, Arizona’s reviews wouldn’t be for government officials to approve or reject the increases, though about half the other states have that in one form or another.

Instead, those insurers that can’t justify rate increase to Arizona regulators’ satisfaction would have to disclose on the insurers’ websites that they’re implementing increases that regulators ruled were unjustifiably high.

If the state can’t outright approve or deny rates, it should bolster the review’s provisions for transparency and consumer involvement in the process, said Matt Jewett, director of health policy for the Children’s Action Alliance.

“Make this a win-win situation,” he said. “We really need to have something that works for both consumers and insurers.”

Ellen Dean, a financial planner and insurance broker, said rate regulation is needed to avoid hefty rate increases that price consumers out of the market.

“Please protect us so that myself and my clients can continue to have health insurance coverage and take responsibility for their medical bills,” she told department officials.

Department spokeswoman Erin Klug said the agency is using part of a $1 million federal grant to improve transparency of its rate-review process to the public, with a big part being added online access to rate information.

Those changes are being planned separately from the formal rule proposal, she said.

Rate increase filings are already publicly available information, Klug said.

“Anybody can come in and get those,” she said. “That’s always been the case. (But) it’s not easy to get them because you have to make a public records request. You have to come in to the department to review them.”

- ab

The sale of Aviva USA may be closer to reality after the acting head of the unit’s U.K.-based parent company stated that the company will consider the disposition of some of its business lines.

In a statement released Thursday, John McFarlane, executive deputy chairman, outlined a set of priorities for Aviva PLC.

“Firstly, a strategic review of all our businesses to ensure we are focused on the right segments; that we put in place plans to advance the performance and position of our businesses strategically, and exit sensibly those that are not part of our future,” McFarlane said. An update on the process will come in July, he added.

McFarlane further stated that the company is on the hunt for a new CEO, which he expects to take the remainder of the year. The previous CEO, Andrew Moss, quit earlier this month over shareholder objections to executive pay packages.

In April, reports surfaced that Aviva PLC was considering the sale of its U.S. unit, which is based in Des Moines, Iowa. Aviva USA is a major player in the indexed annuity business.

In an article in Bloomberg News, Marcus Barnard, a London-based analyst at Oriel Securities, Ltd., said the U.S. unit and other smaller business groups could be up for auction. “Depressed valuations means that exits will probably be difficult and where possible, are likely to be dilutive,” he said.

In the statement released Thursday, Aviva said that in the U.S., its life and annuity sales grew 32 percent in the first quarter to £1,034 million, from £786 million in the same quarter a year earlier, with annuity sales increasing 38 percent and life sales 17 percent. The life new business IRR was 13 percent, down from 14 percent in the first quarter of 2011. “Sales in 1Q11 were particularly low and as a result we expect sales growth compared with the prior year to moderate considerably in the remainder of 2012,” according to the statement.

A spokesperson for Aviva USA declined to comment on the matter, but sent this statement from Aviva USA president and CEO Chris Littlefield: “We had a very strong first quarter, successfully growing both life and annuity sales and further strengthening our capital position. In particular, life insurance sales were up 15 percent over the first quarter of 2011, and now account for more than a quarter of total U.S. sales. Annuity sales saw strong growth of 36 percent with the total annuity account value on the books continuing to climb. In today’s marketplace, our indexed products provide the right fit for many customers. They offer protection from risk in the event of a market downturn, while maintaining the opportunity to benefit if the market does well.”

With low interest rates in the U.S. and Solvency II regulations in the works in Europe, the sale of annuities is becoming more difficult for insurers as reserving requirements are heightened. Observers have speculated that could be the impetus behind Aviva PLC looking to dispose of its U.S. branch.

See also:

• What Would an Aviva Sale Mean for You?
• The Future of Aviva USA
• Slideshow: 6 Potential Buyers for Aviva USA

There are many ways Asian Americans pursue the American dream. Initially, some came to the United States to pursue higher education and eventually developed professional careers. Others embraced their entrepreneurial spirit and successfully started their own businesses, despite language and/or cultural barriers. Some began by establishing businesses within their community and then expanded them into other regions.

Often, first-generation Asian Americans created wealth and accumulated assets through hard work coupled with a natural propensity to save what they earned. However, many were uncertain about how to safeguard wealth and preferred a conservative way to protect and further grow what they had accumulated. Like the rest of us, they’ve seen the risks of investing in the stock market and real estate in recent years.

Based on our experience with first-generation Asian Americans, there’s also a lot of truth to the observation that many are committed to sacrificing everything, especially luxury goods, and doing whatever it takes to provide better educational opportunities and living standards for their children. Leaving a legacy for the next generation is a very high priority for Asian Americans.

The second generation of Asian Americans also offers a compelling profile, having held onto many of the values treasured by their parents. These traits make Asian American prospects ones to seek:

• Entrepreneurial at heart. Skilled at starting and expanding businesses.
• Banking on the future. Industrious savers of what they’ve earned.
• College-bound. Recognize the value of higher education, which often translates into future prosperity.
• Supportive of family values. Strong belief in the family and the protection life insurance offers.
• Loyal. Find a good product and sticking with it.
• Forge relationships. Just the kind of attribute that a good life insurance agent can reinforce.

Propensity for whole life insurance

Financial statistics, as well as the long-held values of this community, provide a clearer picture of why permanent life insurance with cash value accumulation is a natural fit with the financial goals of Asian Americans. The desire to leave a legacy reliant on financial vehicles proven to be safe havens for families’ wealth and a source of supplemental retirement income¹, if needed, plays directly to the strengths of permanent life insurance.

Right now, federal estate taxes apply to amounts over a certain lifetime exemption. Of course, some states also have state estate taxes. Generally, a tax-free death benefit and tax-deferred cash value accumulation make permanent life insurance a compelling solution for many of the wealthiest Americans, Asian or otherwise.

]]> http://lifesourcedirect.com/2012/05/whole-life-insurance-the-financial-foundation-asian-americans-are-seeking/feed/ 0 http://lifesourcedirect.com/2012/05/ppaca-naic-panel-eyes-network-adequacy/ http://lifesourcedirect.com/2012/05/ppaca-naic-panel-eyes-network-adequacy/#comments Thu, 17 May 2012 19:08:04 +0000 admin http://lifesourcedirect.com/2012/05/ppaca-naic-panel-eyes-network-adequacy/ Could PPACA affect insured patients’ ability to see in-network doctors? (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

The people picked to represent consumers in National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proceedings are asking regulators to make sure health insurers offer enough providers to serve enrollees’ needs.

When enrollees have trouble getting timely care from in-network providers, insurers should be prepared to negotiate with the out-of-network providers themselves and limit the enrollees’ out-of-pocket costs to the costs that would be required for comparable care obtained in-network, the consumer reps say.

The consumer reps express their concerns in a comment letter posted on the website of the NAIC’s Exchanges Subgroup.

The NAIC, Kansas City, Mo., provides representatives from patient groups, groups that say they speak for consumers, and other individuals who agree to represent consumers in NAIC proceedings with stipends.

The Exchanges Subgroup has been holding telephone conference calls on the issue of network adequacy and has been drafting a paper on the topic.

“When consumers enroll in a health plan, the provider network that they gain access to is a key attribute of their coverage,” the consumer reps say in their comment letter. “However, many aspects of that network are not transparent to the consumer today. In addition, many states lack minimum thresholds with respect to network depth and breadth – a necessary precondition for coverage to be meaningful.”

Of course, the injury happened on a weekend, so no live humans were available at Giant Health Insurer Inc. were available to answer questions.

Was the provider directory wrong, or was the provider review site wrong? Probably the latter, but only time will tell.

We live in an age when friends tell their friends whether they’ve checked in to a coffee shop or bookstore, and when we work in offices where our e-mail systems tell us whether colleagues are in or out.

Where are the apps that tell health plan members which in-network emergency care and urgent care providers are working at the emergency care and urgent care facilities in a health plan enrollee’s network?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) does require to plans to limit enrollees’ out-of-network emergency care costs to the in-network cost-sharing level.

I don’t know if that provision would have applied in this case. Taking a 6-year-old boy with an arm that might be broken certainly feels like an emergency to the adults involved, but maybe that was really just a very urgent care matter.

And, really, all of the adults involved wanted to be good health care consumers. None of use were trying to run up Giant Health Insurer Inc.’s costs. We would have very gladly have taken the boy to in-network doctors if there was a practical way for us to do.

And, certainly, on the one hand, we literate, cell-phone owning adults had a responsibility to be good health care consumers.

But, on the third hand, it would have been much easier to use a cell phone to find good pizza delivery options near in-network hospitals than to find and see in-network near-emergency urgent care.

On the third hand: Facebook is about to launch an initial public offering and is trying to show that it does something of genuine value.

Groupon is trying to show that there’s value in sending hordes of customers to advertisers who will offer special one-time deals.

Other services show users where their friends are.

Why not talk one of these companies into developing an app that can display a map showing the current locations of in-network emergency care and urgent care providers who are actually in the office? Charge patients an extra amount to see those doctors, and, in return, find some way to protect patients who see those providers against balance billing.

I think that, if nothing else, a private-sector initiative to create that kind of app would ease a lot of the balance-billing grief that turns health policy wonks with what on paper appear to be platinum-level health benefits into bitter, bitter people. There’s nothing like paying $2,000 in out-of-network bills for emergency X-rays to turn a diehard free-market health insurance system advocate into someone who thinks The Government Should DO Something About That, Goshdurnit!!!!! 

On the fourth hand: All of the commotion about PPACA, Greece and rising health care costs may swamp any efforts to improve the commercial health coverage market. Maybe the best we can really expect out of our health care system over the next few years is a choice between aspirin and a leather thong we can chew on if the pain gets too intense. But a mom can dream …

Only about half of current owners of life insurance are happy with the advice they received from the agent who sold them the policy, according to a new report.

Deloitte Research, New York, published this finding in a summary of results from an online survey of 1,071 U.S. based life insurance policyholders and 1,000 individuals without life insurance in June 2011. Deloitte contracted with Andrews Research to conduct the survey.

In learning about life insurance benefits, coverage needs, options and costs among current buyers, the report finds that respondents were most satisfied reviewing their employee benefits package (67%), followed by speaking with an insurance agent (59%) and reviewing information packages from an insurance agent.

Satisfaction levels were lower among those speaking with a financial planner (44%) and those either speaking with a bank representative or reviewing information packages received from a bank (36%).

The report finds that more than half (55%) of non-buyers expect to purchase less than $100,000 in coverage. But among those who already have coverage, 62% expect to buy more than $100,000 in coverage, including 32% who anticipate purchasing more than $200,000.

Among current policyholders who had received solicitations, two-thirds (67%) came directly from life insurers, with other sources trailing behind, including agents (37%) and banks (30%). Significant numbers of respondents also reported receiving cross-selling offers from their auto insurers (26%).

Among those who currently have life insurance coverage, the workplace was a prime market for life insurers, as 32% of respondents said they had coverage automatically provided by their employer, while 19% said they bought additional insurance through their employee benefits program. And 9% bought an individual policy from an agent at their place of employment.

When current holders of life insurance were asked about factors that had influenced their last purchase decision, more than 8 in 10 (84%) either strongly agreed (35%) or agreed (49%) that they bought a life policy because the price was affordable.

Among other factors, about one-third of current buyers strongly agreed (14%) or agreed (21%) that they bought life insurance because of advice from a family member, friend or business associate. A similar percentage said they bought due to the recommendation of an insurance agent. Thirty-seven percent noted they were impressed by the brand name, reputation and/or rating of the insurer.

1. Increasing Market Scenario. When the market is going up, people don’t want to get out because they want to ride it up and make money. This is known as “the greed effect.” “No reason to get out, let’s just keep watching our accounts grow.”
2. Decreasing Market Scenario. When the market is going down, those same people now realize they would be selling at a loss. They may now have $900,000 in their account when they had $1 million just two weeks ago. The typical response? “I can’t sell now! I need to wait until I get back up!” They may even chase a moving target and say, “I’ll sell out when I get my money back.”
3. Flat Market Scenario. The third possibility is a flat-line market. In this scenario, there’s really no pain and no need to make a change‑no urgency either way. “Why move now? It’s not hurting anything to stay in.”

So when we consider these three scenarios and understand how people respond to the different market conditions, it’s important to understand that this way of thinking is completely natural. This thought process is what I call “investing based on emotion‑not logic.” Most people are programmed to think this way about their investments. They naturally become emotionally connected to their current investments. Unfortunately, what clients really need to do is to make logical decisions and try to not get emotionally involved.

So how do you get clients to think logically? First, you need them to be aware of what’s taking place. Help them to understand the possible market scenarios and ask them that original question, “When is the perfect time to get out of the market?” Get them thinking about it. Next, put the money you’re discussing with them on the shelf for a minute, removing all emotional connection to it. Here’s an example of how you can do that:

“Mr. Client, let’s forget about this money for a moment and let me ask you a question. If you were to inherit some money today‑money you were not at all expecting but it just popped up and now it’s yours‑if this happened, where would you invest it today?”