insurance

What could possibly go wrong?

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.voiceoftalent.com/images/files.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="107" src="http://www.voiceoftalent.com/images/files.jpg" width="140" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">"<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10674639/NHS-hospital-records-used-by-private-marketing-firms.html" target="_blank">Hospital records are being used by private firms advising companies how to target their marketing</a>" No, this isn't a result of The ObamaTax (yet), but it's clearly where we're heading. Now, if this was "aggregated" information (that is, information on groups or demographics) then perhaps this could be a good thing: if, for example, it turned out that 40-year-old diabetics were routinely misdiagnosed or treated, then that could help the MVNHS© hone in on specific providers and, perhaps, resolve that problem. In this case, however, it appears that the (heretofore private) health information of specific patients is being divulged (sold?). On the one hand, "marketing firm Beacon Dodsworth said it had not been able to access raw data, but analysis of the hospital trends, integrated with other information;" on the other, "documents suggest the sensitive data would be used to target people on social media websites such as Facebook." Fortunately, we have <a href="http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/hipaa-jumps-shark.html" target="_blank">HIPAA</a> and other privacy regulations in place, so that could never happen here. Right?</div>

What could *possibly* go wrong?

" Hospital records are being used by private firms advising companies how to target their marketing " No, this isn't a result ...

6:18 AM

That train(wreck) has left the station [UPDATED: Clarification]

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://redpenofdoomdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/train-wreck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="93" src="http://redpenofdoomdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/train-wreck.jpg" width="140" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unbelievable: "...<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/199784-new-obamacare-delay-to-help-midterm-dems#ixzz2uzVrWGVd" target="_blank">the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements</a>." Really? Here's a news flash: "...<a href="http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/its-catastrophic.html" target="_blank">even if carriers wanted to sell these plans, they still have to price and file them with the 58 states' departments of insurance, and then feed these rates into their quoting engines</a>" That's right: the only non-ACA-compliant plans that are left are those that have been grandfathered. And adding insult to injury, grandfathered plans cannot be changed; that is, no deductible changes, no adding or dropping benefits, period. I just looked again, and there are no non-ACA-compliant plans available on or off the Exchange. Now, some might point to "mini-med" and short term plans as examples of non-ACA-compliant polices, but these were never considered true major medical plans in the first place. Smoke and mirrors. UPDATE/Clarification: In re-reading this story (as well as a few others), it appears that this applies to those who went the "early renewal" route in order to stave off the cancellation of their pre-ACA plans for a year. The "relief" is that, under this new regime, those who had in fact renewed early may be able to keep their pre-ACA plans an additional year. No word yet on whether or not any changes to these policies will be allowed (as they are disallowed on grandfathered plans). Oh, and let;s not forget that, just a few short months ago, these plans were all characterized as "<a href="http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/stupid-government-tricks.html" target="_blank">sub-standard</a>." </div>

That train(wreck) has left the station [UPDATED: Clarification]

Unbelievable: "... the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet O...

7:00 AM

Wait, wait!

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://jlu.wbtrain.com/SumTotal/jlu2.0/IMAGES/hour_glass.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://jlu.wbtrain.com/SumTotal/jlu2.0/IMAGES/hour_glass.gif" width="140" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, MVNHS© <strike>victims</strike> patients continue receiving free healthcare. Eventually: "<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570597/Three-week-wait-doctor-Millions-patients-denied-prompt-appointment-GP.html" target="_blank">Millions of patients wait as long as three weeks to see their GP</a>" The problem, of course, is quite simple: high demand ("free" healthcare) with low supply (healthcare). Here, of course, it's a completely different matter: we can't even get the "free" part right. Just ask Jacki Manley: "...<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570937/Long-waits-frustrate-callers-health-exchanges.html" target="_blank">a stay-at-home mom in the western Maryland town of Keedysville, who has been trying since mid-December to enroll in a health plan through that state's health exchange</a>." Just wait 'til she's signed up, and gets the same great "service" as our Cousins Across The Pond. The good news is that our Betters-in-DC© don't have to worry about these little hiccups: "<a href="http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/two-americas-dc-elite-have-escape-hatch-from-obamacare/" target="_blank">This year, members of Congress and thousands of their staffers are finally signing up for health insurance provided by an ObamaCare exchange ... unlike those millions of Americans, members and staff have a way to opt out of ObamaCare — retirement</a>" That's right, they actually make enough to get to retire, at which point they can hop back on the incredibly benefit-rich Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Two legs good, four legs better?</div>

Wait, wait!

So, MVNHS© victims patients continue receiving free healthcare. Eventually: " Millions of patients wait as long as three weeks to see ...

9:07 AM

Some thoughts on my Answers.com experience

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn6Zk4LLs-5yDyhAAiyQNUcqFHKqzVg5ozR7G2J-tafHJYa_LIY3twRnkjfPA1WQ9v6wyJyGQ_whXaGaOJAPEgzBQ3paFXx69ZVpQlPIf6Rxp2q4V9_m_RDWC8P3YD9x-CfXnsapEWg0o/s1600/answers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="40" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn6Zk4LLs-5yDyhAAiyQNUcqFHKqzVg5ozR7G2J-tafHJYa_LIY3twRnkjfPA1WQ9v6wyJyGQ_whXaGaOJAPEgzBQ3paFXx69ZVpQlPIf6Rxp2q4V9_m_RDWC8P3YD9x-CfXnsapEWg0o/s1600/answers.jpg" width="140" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/my-last-new-article-is-up.html" target="_blank">As I mentioned</a> the other day, my<a href="http://insurance.answers.com/methods-to-obtain-insurance/why-you-need-an-insurance-agent" target="_blank"> final long-form</a> Answers.com article went up last Thursday (February 27th). Although I'll continue in my role as the Insurance Content Expert Writer (CEW) at Answers, that role has significantly changed. I think that's a good thing. When I was first approached to apply for the position, the folks at Answers were very clear as to what they expected from me (10-20 articles per month, each article had to clock in at between 400 and 600 words, specific format choices), and that they could modify that agreement at any time going forward. That seemed (and seems) fair, and I applied for the position knowing full well what that meant. Or so I thought. No, they did not mislead me in any way; rather, I misled myself. I had determined that writing 3 articles a week would get me to 12 or so a month, which seemed eminently doable. And heck, this is insurance, after all - how hard could it be to come up with a virtually endless supply of topics? Aye, there's the rub: As it turns out, writing "evergreen" articles (that is, non-"topical" pieces that would remain accurate for some indefinite period of time) is a lot harder than I'd anticipated: while insurance policies change all the time, insurance principles generally don't. Plus, I'd determined to go outside my own comfort zone of Life and Health, and try to write about Property and Casualty plans, as well. My knowledge of that side of "the biz" is, hmm, limited, but I have quite a few P&C friends with whom to consult (and to whom I am eternally grateful). Still, I found myself brainstorming topic ideas, in an effort to stockpile as many potential posts as possible. This became a losing battle. Fortunately for me, about two months in they lowered my minimum "quota" to 5 posts per month. Surely, I thought, that can't be difficult. Again, I was fooling myself as I quickly ran through my "stash" of topics. Finally, in early February, I received a very nice email from the folks at Answers.com, informing me that they had revisited the whole CEW program, and decided that the numbers just weren't working. I get that: as far as I can tell, they had dozens of CEWs in various categories  churning out hundreds of articles every month. That's a lot of cash going out and, although I really don't know how much they took in (none of my business, of course), I have to think this became a losing proposition for them. I was pleasantly surprised at my own reaction: rather than profound disappointment or even anger, I felt relief. After all, I still have my real job, plus IB, and, most important, my family, with whom I would like to spend at least some time. And then there's that whole sleep thing... So, beginning this month, I'll be tasked with answering just six insurance-related questions per year, which they'll feed to me every so often, and to which I must craft a 100 or so word response. Of course, this dramatically reduces the amount they're paying me, but I can live with that. The long-form compensation was very nice, but I think we'll survive without it (after all, we survived without it before I accepted the position). All in all, I must say that this has been a very positive experience, and my "body of work" will remain online at Answers.com (and I'll continue to be their <a href="http://insurance.answers.com/expert/henry-stern" target="_blank">Insurance CEW</a>). So: Thank You, <a href="http://answers.com/">Answers.com</a>, for the opportunity and the experience!</div>