Read More ...

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Louisiana: Summary of Insurance-Related Bills Pre-Filed for the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana State Legislature

—» UPDATED: A summary of some of the bills relating to insurance, insurance law and the insurance industry pre-filed for the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana State Legislature is available at Louisiana Insurance Regulatory Law.

The summary will be updated as more bills are pre-filed before the February 29, 2012 pre-filing deadline.

The 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana State Legislature convenes on March 12, 2012.
 

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Cavalcade of Risk, No. 151 - The Crossword Puzzle

Once again, Insurance Regulatory Law is proud to host the Cavalcade of Risk, this week in its 151st edition. The Cavalcade of Risk is a biweekly rotating collection of articles and links (also known as a "blog carnival") from insurance and other-risk-related sources that provides some great information and insight about risks and risk management.

Blatantly stealing an idea from the Notwithstanding Blog, this edition of the Cavalcade of Risk comes complete with its very own crossword puzzle – each entry has a question or hint that corresponds to an answer on the crossword puzzle.

Clues to the answers can be found in each individual blog article, and all entries must be read to solve the puzzle.


1 DOWN: What Jon and Kathleen did not discuss
Louise Norris at Colorado Health Insurance Insider comments on Jon Stewart's interview with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Find out what Louise says Jon and Kathleen left out of their discussion about the Affordable Care Act.

2 DOWN: Who can apply for over 50s Insurance

3 ACROSS: It sparked rising federal involvement in insurance regulation
Insurance Regulatory Law discusses how the myth of widespread insurance company insolvencies during the financial crisis in the late 2000s has fueled increasing federal involvement in insurance regulation.

4 DOWN: The "E" in CLUE
Henry Stern and Bob Vineyard at InsureBlog advise those who want to determine if their recently deceased loved one had any life insurance to get a CLUE!

5 ACROSS: Swiss banking feature?
Odysseas Papdimitriou at WalletBlog exposes the dark, seedy underbelly of watches, army knives and hot cocoa. Yes, it appears that banking neutrality really stands for hypocrisy in Odysseas's book.

6 DOWN: They've run amok with the language
Jaan Sidorov, MD, at the Disease Management Care Blog, provides his usual high-level of insight into preauthorization and retroactive audits for patient safety, and finally settles the long-asked question: is commercial health insurance an evil empire controlled by weenie pirates?

7 ACROSS: The answer
The Healthcare Economist investigates disease management and value-based purchasing programs to evaluate their effectiveness.

8 ACROSS: All of them must be considered
Melissa Batai at Parenting Family Money asks some difficult, but necessary, questions about life insurance for children.

9 ACROSS: One of the common conditions in Dr. Kaufman's study
David E. Williams of the Health Business Blog interviews Dr. Harvey Kaufman about the value of laboratory tests and employer sponsored health risk assessments.

The next edition of the Cavalcade of Risk will be hosted by Emily Holbrook at Risk Management Monitor in March.

Friday, February 20, 2015

The Insurance Industry and the Great Recession, Part I - Rising Federal Involvement in Insurance Regulation

Despite public perception to the contrary, the insurance industry survived the Great Recession relatively unscathed. Nevertheless, the myth of widespread insurance insolvencies has fueled increasing federal involvement in insurance regulation.
In discussing the history of insurance regulation, Insurance Regulatory Law explained that the insurance industry avoided the layers of New Deal federal regulation that befell the banking and securities industries in the mid-1930s primarily because the insurance industry survived the Great Depression largely intact.
The New Deal federalization arose from the failure of the state-based banking and securities regulators associated with the Great Depression, but the relatively healthy insurance industry showed little evidence of any similar faults on the part of the state-based insurance regulators. [1]
With respect to the Great Recession however, the insurance industry has not avoided federal involvement in insurance regulation despite remaining on the periphery of the most recent financial crisis.

The Great Recesssion was a global financial crisis that has sparked rising federal involvement in insurance regulation.
The Great Recession, also known as the Late-2000s Financial Crisis, the Lesser Depression and the Long Recession, was a global recession that involved the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments and downturns in stock markets around the world. Arguably, the Great Recession may have laid the groundwork for the eventual eclipse of the long-standing state-based system of insurance regulation in favor of a slowly but steadily growing federal insurance regulatory scheme.

However, this new rise of federal involvement in insurance regulation did not come about because of a failure of the state-based system – indeed, much like the Great Depression, the insurance industry faired relatively well through the Great Recession, despite public perception.

At the Annual Meeting of the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations ("NOLHGA") in October of 2011, Peter G. Gallanis, President of NOLHGA, made a presentation addressing certain public misconceptions about the insurance industry and the financial crisis.

While the Great Recession brought global financial hardship, the insurance industry remained comparatively unscathed.
According to Gallanis, a commonly-held public misconception is that the financial crisis in the late-2000s involved widespread and systematic failures of insurance companies across the country. Remarkably, while the Great Recession brought financial hardship on a global scale, the insurance industry remained comparatively unscathed, at least in terms of financial solvency.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that large U.S. and European banks lost as much as $2.8 trillion in toxic assets and bad loans from 2007 to 2010.[2] More than 100 mortgage lenders went bankrupt during 2007 and 2008. During the Great Recession a number of major financial institutions failed, were acquired under duress or were taken over by the government, including Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and AIG.[3] In fact, Lehman Brothers was the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history at the time, listing its debt as more than $613 billion.[4]

In contrast, the insurance industry suffered only relatively minor failures, none of which were on a systemic scale. There were approximately 11 small insurance company insolvencies in the U.S. during the financial crisis, with aggregate policyholder liabilities of $955 million.[5]

A comparison between all of the insolvencies experienced by the insurance industry during the financial crisis and just the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy shows just how well the insurance industry faired through the Great Recession.
Thus, the public perception that the Great Recession involved widespread insurance company insolvencies appears to be unfounded.

Part II of this article will address another commonly-held misconception about the insurance industry and the Great Recession by answering the question: did the federal government rescue the insurance industry during the financial crisis?


1A Brief Chronicle of Insurance Regulation in the United States, Part I: From De Facto Judicial Regulation to South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, Van R., Mayhall, III, Insurance Regulatory Law, May 16, 2011, citing Stemple on Insurance Contracts; Jeffrey W. Stempel, Vol. 1, §2.07, 3rd Ed., 2007.
2U.S., European Bank Writedowns, Credit Losses, Reuters, November 5, 2009.
3The Great Crash, 2008, Robert C. Altman, Foreign Affairs, January, 2009.
4Lehman Files Biggest Bankruptcy Case as Suitors Balk, Yalman Onaran and Christopher Scinta, Bloomberg, September 15, 2008.
5Seven Things We Know About Insurance and the Financial Crisis – That Aren't True, Peter G. Gallanis, NOLHGA Annual Meeting, October, 2011.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

PCIP Healthcare Reform Program for Pre-Existing Conditions Shuts Down

The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Program, created by the Obama healthcare reform law, is shutting its doors to new applicants because of the rising costs of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.
The financial costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions is sapping the funds provided by Congress to the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP), a program created under the Obama administration's healthcare reform law. As a result, the PCIP is closing its doors to new applicants, although officials contend that current enrollees will still have coverage.
Citing financial concerns, the Obama administration has begun quietly winding down one of the earliest programs created by the president's health care overhaul, a plan that helps people with existing medical problems who can't get private insurance.[1]
According to an article from Reuters, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suspended new enrollments in PCIP, which is currently operating in twenty-three (23) states and the District of Columbia, in order to "ensure that funds are available through 2013 to continuously cover people currently enrolled in PCIP."
The news underscores the financial costs involved in covering people with pre-existing conditions, including many with costly chronic diseases, as the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry prepares for sweeping reforms that analysts say could bring higher health insurance costs.[2]
Although PCIP charges its enrollees a premium for insurance coverage, that premium is insufficient to fund the medical and administration expenses associated with providing health insurance coverage for the enrolled patients with pre-existing conditions.
The plan covers people who have had problems getting private insurance because of a medical condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. Premiums are keyed to average rates charged in each state, which means they're not necessarily cheap, often amounting to several hundred dollars a month for middle-aged individuals.[3]
The Obama administration's healthcare reform initiatives, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, provided $5 billion to cover the costs of providing health insurance coverage that exceed the premiums charged by PCIP.
PCIP was established in 2010 under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law to provide coverage for sick people unable to find it in the private insurance market. The program is designed as a bridge to January 1, 2014, when legal restrictions barring discrimination over medical conditions come into force.[4]
According to Reuters, PCIP has about 100,000 current enrollees that will not be affected by the announcement, "which follows more than two years of escalating enrollments and outlays." The article also indicated that twenty-seven (27) state-run PCIPs will suspend new enrollments after March 2, 2013.

PCIP is closing to new applicants to ensure it doesn't run out of money before the year-end.
The HHS official responsible for overseeing implementation of the Obamacare reforms, Gary Cohen, made it clear to the Senate Finance Committee that the alteration to the PCIP program was necessary in order to avoid running out of money before the end of the year, according to Reuters.[5]An Associated Press article indicates that PCIP was designed to be "a stopgap solution" until Obamacare's "full consumer protections" go into effect in 2014.[6]
Starting next January 1, insurance companies will no longer be able to turn anyone away because of poor health. At the same time, the federal government will begin subsidizing coverage for millions of individuals who have no access to employer plans.[7]


Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Affordable Care Act in the News

A proponent of the Affordable Care Act has admitted that insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the Act's reforms. The White House chief of staff has also suggested that the recent "compromise" on contraceptive coverage in health plans will ultimately save insurance companies money.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathon Gruber, a proponent of the health care reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), has recently acknowledged that the "price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms."[1]

Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, agrees according to the Daily Caller. Pipes indicated that the Affordable Care Act will cause healthcare rationing, and that the Obamacare "will ultimately result in far greater costs across the board."[2]

On a related note, White House chief of staff Jack Lew indicated that the recent "compromise" proposed by the Obama administration requiring insurance companies to pay for the cost of birth control if religious non-profit insureds claim an exemption in their health plans "will not cost the insurance companies money." As reported by Talking Points Memo, Lew said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the total care of healthcare for persons without contraceptive coverage is higher than with such coverage.[3]

UPDATE: According to the Weekly Standard, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said that self-insured entities should be required to pay for morning-after pills and birth control as part of the health insurance plans they provide. This would include organizations such as the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., which is a self-insured institution that has expressed its moral objections to birth control.

Pelosi went on to say that "all institutions" that provide health insurance "should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women."[4]


Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Colorado car insurance

Significant Requirements for Car Insurance in Colorado Colorado car insurance is not the same as that of different states. The state's laws stipulate that the obligatory insurance scope every driver must carry is as accompanies: * Bodily harm risk (BI): This scope gives the driver fiscal insurance on the off chance that he causes a mischance in which an alternate gathering gets harm or slaughtered. As far as possible needed by the state are $25,000 for every individual and $50,000 for every mishap (25/50). For included security, budgetary masters suggest a base scope of $100,000 for every individual and $300,000 for every event (100/300). * Property harm risk (PD): Offers scope for the driver in case he causes harm to an alternate singular's property. This scope is not restricted to occurrences including a car. It reaches out to physical lands, for example, edifices, carport entryways and utility shafts. Colorado state laws oblige at least $15,000 for every event. * Uninsured/underinsured driver (Um/uim): Covers therapeutic and different costs a driver may need to manage in the event that he is hit by a driver without satisfactory collision protection scope. Most drivers buy crash and thorough insurance as included security, however the choice likewise exists for them to buy extra scope for the expense of harm to their car. The state obliges that guarantors offer a driver Um/uim scope in the same sum that the driver chose for substantial damage. This scope could be waived by the insurance organization, however the driver will dismiss it in composing. When that is carried out, a driver can then select a beginning limit equal to that of the base for substantial damage (25/50) up to the risk sum they obtained on their approach. * Medical installments scope (Med Pay/mpc): As of January 1, 2009, Colorado car insurance suppliers are obliged to offer drivers scope of $5,000. This scope and premium is immediate unless a driver quits. Dismissal might be carried out in composing, through the Internet or by phone. Back up plans are likewise needed by law to hold $5,000 of a driver's MPC for 30 days. The total withheld will go towards the installment of trauma bills. * Collision and exhaustive: Both of these scopes are noncompulsory. While not required, drivers are encouraged to get them as extra insurance against engine vehicle robbery, mischances, and different occasions, for example, harm or misfortune of a vehicle because of regular fiascos. Auto Theft in Colorado Most states have the test of managing car robbery. The same is accurate for Colorado. The Colorado Auto Theft Prevention Authority (CATPA) obliges guarantors to pay a charge expense of $1 for each one vehicles it safeguards. Insurance organizations may pass this charge on to the drivers. Here are ten of the most stolen cars in the state. Most Stolen cars in Colorado: * 1996 Honda Accord * 1995 Honda Civic * 1995 Acura Integra * 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 * 1991 Toyota Camry * 1995 Jeep Cherokee * 1998 Ford F-150 * 1994 Saturn L-Series * 2001 Jeep Cherokee * 2000 Ford F-250 Colorado Car Insurance Rates The state of Colorado is shortly stacked up in the main one-third of U.s. states with premiums that normal $850 for every year. It is trying for drivers to discover cheap car insurance in Colorado, yet it is not inconceivable. Car holders necessity to be cognizant that there are a few elements that influence their premiums. Colorado car insurance appraisals are built with rating elements that are ascertained against the driver as a danger. Having a negative history as a driver, driving impaired (DUI), and being included in various mischances are illustrations of the danger figures that insurance organizations will think about when completing up Colorado accident protection cites. Drivers with a clean record can get more level insurance rates. Drivers likewise need to comprehend that one driver's activity can eventually influence the whole Colorado collision protection rating. High occurrences of engine vehicle mishaps and car burglary have a tendency to drive insurance rates higher. There are numerous insurance organizations that operate all around the state, and they offer drivers rebates that will bring down their premiums. Drivers meet all requirements for these rebates dependent upon certain components. Rebates might be offered to a driver dependent upon the benefits of a great driving record, the amount of vehicles the organization blankets for that driver and mileage. Mishaps coming about because of poor way conditions in Colorado have a tendency to muddle the methodology of figuring out risk. Who may as well bear the expense connected with mischances brought on by poor street conditions? Immediately the finger will focus at the state, yet getting the state to pay is not a simple errand. It is prudent that drivers included in mischances act rapidly, as the statute of limits might be as short as six months). They will get an encountered lawyer, and guarantee that they keep stringent records that reflect each portion of the mishap. Photos indicating the state of the ways around then of the mischance are extraordinary augmentations. Other rating components used to figure out the accident coverage evaluations in the state of Colorado are: * Credit-based insurance scores * Location and age * Experience (number of years as a driver) * Type of vehicle * Marital status * Driving history The instruments utilized by each one organization to touch base at their rating score may differ. Looking, gathering some Colorado accident protection quotes and thinking about rates is a shrewd methodology for any driver whether they are looking for Colorado cheap accident coverage. The administrative form for Colorado accident protection is the Colorado Division of Insurance (http://www.dora.state.co.us/insurance/regs/rb.htm). Seat Belt Usage Laws in Colorado The driver and all travelers involving the front seat of a vehicle in Colorado are obliged to wear a seat sash. People exempted from watching this law are the individuals who have a physical disability.

Car Donations in Sacramento .

Give Car in Sacramento, California Your vehicle donation in the Sacramento zone is invited by Donation Line. You pick the philanthropy from our far reaching rundown of non benefit associations, which includes Sacramento based foundations, for example, Friends of the River in addition to many other California based philanthropist. We have towing organizations in the Sacramento territory prepared to rapidly pickup your car donation. Rescue, garbage and non-running cars are likewise acknowledged. Notwithstanding car donations we acknowledge donations of watercrafts, trucks, Vans, Rvs, bikes, plane skis and snowmobiles. Sacramento Car Donation to Charity Basically finish our Online Vehicle Donation Form or call us without toll at 1-877-227-7487 whenever, seven days a week to begin our no cost, no pester car donation process. Telephones are replied by our encountered and trained drivers. You will be reached by our towing operator who will orchestrate an expedient pickup. The towing operator will furnish a pickup receipt and the philanthropy you select will send you an expense conclusion letter. To take in more about how to give a car, watercraft, RV, and so on and get replies to the most often made inquiries, please visit our website www.donationline.com

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Divorce and Life Insurance


by Richard F. O’Boyle, Jr., LUTCF, MBA

Divorce is never easy. It is an emotionally taxing experience, but may be an opportunity for a new beginning. There are so many minor details that need to be ironed out between the two parties that some are bound to get overlooked. Life insurance is an important aspect that many people might not think about until it’s too late.


Divorce Decree

When you purchase life insurance, the goal is to make sure your family is provided for in the event of your death. It’s important that the life insurance is addressed in the divorce decree and the proper language associated with it.


You and your soon to be ex-spouse need to come to an agreement on what you plan to do and what your options are. The odds are your spouse is the beneficiary of the money. While you most certainly make changes to your will after a divorce, remember that beneficiaries on a life insurance policy can only be changed by filing a new beneficiary with the insurance company.



In many cases, the divorce decree will spell out one partner’s financial obligations to the couple’s children. These may include a requirement to provide financial child support, health insurance coverage, college funding or assistance of other sorts until the children reach a certain age. Just as with a married couple, life insurance would provide a ready financial asset in the event that the individual dies prematurely. Some planners would calculate the value of these obligations and obtain a term life insurance plan (or repurpose an existing plan) that would cover this amount.


As married couple accumulate assets over time, at the time of divorce those assets are usually split up. The cash values in a permanent life insurance contract are assets just as a house, retirement plan or ownership in a business. Keep in mind that permanent life insurance has very specific tax rules associated with it – which can be a curse and a blessing.

Transfer of Value and Taxation



When you transfer the value of your life insurance to another party, the government says that the death benefit is now taxable. This is called the “transfer for value” rule. Life insurance death benefits are generally federally tax free, but people were taking advantage of this by continuously transferring the policy and reaping the benefits.


The rule has been adjusted so that divorcing parties are not subject to the transfer for value rule: The recipient spouse will have a cost basis in the policy equal to the net premiums paid by the transferor spouse. So while the death benefit might not be fully tax free, it will depend on how much in premiums were spent over the previous years. It’s wise to speak with your attorney about the specifics of your case and relevant state laws (which may vary considerably).


If the divorcing partners have significant assets, including the value of life insurance death benefits, they may be subject to federal and state estate taxes. This can be extraordinarily complicated and is not the subject of this article.


It’s a good idea to keep a policy in force until all of the details have been worked out: don’t jump the gun and cancel a policy to buy a new one. You may not be getting the best rate and in some cases may even be uninsurable. For this reason, make sure that you have a good grip on exactly what coverage you have, and what coverage you will need.


Designating Beneficiaries


If children are involved, you should carefully consider whom to name as the new beneficiary. Minor children who receive life insurance proceeds may wind up with the ex-spouse as their guardian – and controller of the inheritance. This may not be in synch with your wishes.


It’s not uncommon to place a life insurance policy into an irrevocable life insurance trust so that you can spell out how the death benefit will be paid out after you die. A trust is an entity that is managed by a person or group of people to manage the trust’s assets according to the guidelines spelled out in the trust’s founding documents. For example, if your children are very young and can’t handle suddenly having several hundred thousand dollars, you can make the trust the beneficiary. The trustees would ensure that the children get enough money for college, health or even vacations. The children or your ex-spouse can’t touch the money without the trustees’ approval.


You should also address the possibility of a future spouse and their claim to the insurance. If children are not involved, you can negotiate taking your current spouse off and either canceling the policy or changing to a different beneficiary. Your spouse may want to fight you on this, especially if they stand to get a significant amount of money, but it should be hammered out in the divorce decree.


Divorce can be a messy business and hardly anyone leaves it with exactly what they want, but the key is compromise. This goes for life insurance claims as well. You and your ex-partner need to agree on what to do and have it written into the decree. You may not get what you want and your partner may not get what they want, but the decisions need to be made.


If you have no children, you may want to consider simply canceling the policy and getting another one for yourself when the time is right. The goal of life insurance is to provide financial stability in the event of your death. Since your spouse will no longer be your spouse, you may be under no legal or moral obligation to provide for them after your death.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

FIO Still Working on Overdue Modernization of Insurance Regulation Report

The Federal Insurance Office is still working on the insurance regulation modernization report that was due to Congress last month, and many in the industry suggest the report could be a critical event.
The new Federal Insurance Office has announced that the eagerly (or perhaps apprehensively) awaited report on insurance regulation modernization is still weeks away. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the FIO was supposed to submit the report to Congress by January 21, 2012.[1]

According to a U.S. Treasury spokesperson quoted by Insurance Journal:
We are hard at work preparing FIO’s first report on how to improve and modernize the system of insurance regulation in the U.S., and expect to send the report to Congress in the coming weeks.[2]
FIO Director Michael McRaith, as reported by Claims Journal, indicated that the FIO had received almost 150 comment letters from the industry with recommendations on how to improve the regulatory system.[3]

Many in the insurance industry are watching the newly-formed FIO with interest, and some suggest that the report could be a critical event for the insurance industry in that it may signal the role that the FIO sees for federal involvement in domestic insurance regulation moving forward.[4]



1Federal Insurance Office Says Overdue Regulation Report Still Weeks Away, Young Ha, Claims Journal, February 6, 2012.
2Federal Insurance Office Says…, id.
3Federal Insurance Office Says…, id.
4Insurance Regulation 2012: Reading the Tea Leaves, Insurance Regulatory Law, Van R. Mayhall, III, January 3, 2012.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Report Suggests States May Lack Enforcement Authority Over Looming Affordable Care Act Provisions

A report from the Commonwealth Fund suggests that state lawmakers should act soon to ensure that state regulators have the requisite authority necessary to enforce the provisions of PPACA due to be implemented in 2014.
The report finds an "acute need" for state policymakers to act.
A report from a private health policy foundation, finds slow progress among the states in implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The report suggests an "acute need" for a number of states to take legislative action in 2013 in order to prepare for the various changes due to be implemented in 2014 under PPACA.

The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that seeks to promote a better health care system and that supports independent research on health care issues, recently released a report entitled Implementing the Affordable Care Act: State Action on the 2014 Market Reforms.

According to the report, PPACA "significantly strengthens standards for private health insurance under federal law and protects consumers across the nation." PPACA also phases in "significant reforms designed to improve the accessibility, affordability, and adequacy of private health insurance," according to the report.
These reforms will phase in over time, with the most dramatic changes scheduled to take effect for health insurance plans or policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. These changes—known as the “2014 market reforms”—include guaranteed access to coverage, a ban on preexisting condition exclusions, restrictions on the use of health status and other factors when setting premium rates, and the coverage of a minimum set of essential health benefits, among other critical consumer protections.
If the states fail to substantially enforce PPACA, the federal regulators will step in.
Although PPACA is a federal law, insurance regulation has traditionally been the province of the individual state governments. PPACA shows the traditional state regulatory roll some deference in that it provides that the states have the primary responsibility to enforce PPACA. However, if the states fail to "substantially enforce" PPACA, the law provides that federal regulators will step in and undertake primary enforcement. According to the report, such federal enforcment "could subject insurers to significant fines for failure to comply with the law's requirements."

The Commonwealth Fund's report focused on seven (7) of the "most critical 2014 market reforms" and examined whether the various states employed the enforcement and rulemaking authority they were granted under PPACA to ensure compliance with the federal law. The analysis showed that only one (1) state – Connecticut – took new legislative or regulatory action on all of these critical 2014 market reforms, while another ten (10) states and the District of Columbia took action on at least one of the surveryed reforms. These ten (10) states included Arkansas, California, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.
The majority—39 states—have yet to take new legislative or regulatory action to implement the 2014 market reforms.
The analysis went further, examining whether new legislative or regulatory action was not taken by these thirty-nine (39) other states because those state regulators already had enough authority to enforce federal law "through, for example, a broad provision that allows the insurance department to enforce federal insurance protections."

11 states passed laws specifically authorizing regulatory action on the 2014 reforms.
The report found that eleven (11) states "passed new legislation that explicitly requires (or allows) state regulators to enforce or issue regulations regarding some or all of the 2014 market reforms." These states were Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah and Vermont.

Nevertheless, only eight (8) of the remaining states reported existing enforcement or rulemaking authority with respect to the surveyed market reforms.

Twenty-two states indicated, according to the report, that there "could be some limits on their authority" to enforce or regulate with respect to the 2014 market reforms. The report noted here that "state authority varied significantly." Additionally, another ten (10) states did not respond to the survey at all.
These findings suggest that many states may need to take action in 2013 to ensure that consumers receive the full benefits promised under the Affordable Care Act. Because states are expected to be the primary enforcers, most will need to implement the new protections so they are reflected in state law or—at a minimum—give the insurance department the authority to enforce and write new rules on the 2014 market reforms.
Ultimately, the Commonwealth Fund report emphasizes that, to ensure that state regulators have the requisite authority necessary to enforce the provisions of PPACA due to be implemented in 2014, state policyhmakers should take action during the 2013 state legislative sessions.


Read the full report:

Monday, February 2, 2015

How to Reamortize Your Mortgage

by Richard F. O’Boyle, LUTCF, MBA

Many people refinance their mortgage in the hopes of lowering their monthly payments, but there’s a little-known trick that can lower your monthly mortgage bill without a costly and hassle-prone re-fi. The last thing the banks want you to do is shorten your loan, reduce your interest rate, or lower the lifetime interest paid: that’s why they push refinancing. They want to sell you a new mortgage with all the attendant fees and lock you in for another lengthy term.

A reamortization, also known as a recast or a principal curtailment modification, will lower your monthly payment without a new mortgage loan. The bank will recalculate your current mortgage (using the same term and interest rate) and lower the required principal and interest payments going forward. Over the life of the loan, the total interest payments will also be lower. This strategy only works if you have been paying additional principal towards your mortgage over the years or you have a lump sum now that you want to pay.

Many loan officers don’t even know what a reamortization is! And banks don’t make it easy for you. They will charge a fee of about $200 and then drag things out for a few months. They may even require you to have your mortgage prepaid for a month in advance while they shuffle their paperwork. But if your monthly payment goes significantly lower, it may be worth the effort. After recasting your mortgage, you can still continue to make additional principal payments and then do the process again in a few years.

If you decide that recasting makes sense for you, be prepared:
- Have a lump sum (perhaps from a bonus from work or an income tax refund);
- Call your mortgage company and track down their recasting specialist and get a direct dial phone number and mailing address;
- Ask them to calculate your new recasted payment amount and to quote you the fee;
- Draft a letter of request for the recast (or whatever their bank calls it) and submit it along with the fee;
- Don’t send your lump sum payment until they tell you exactly when and where to send it;
- The bank will send you a letter that needs to be notarized and returned before your next payment is due; and finally,
- Keep copies of everything!


© 2011 Prism Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.