The deregulation of the Massachusetts auto insurance market has driven up prices, boosted insurer profits, reduced consumer protections and generally created confusion in the marketplace, according to a new report by the state's attorney general.
The report, which comes roughly two years after the creation of managed competition, provides an accounting of how the market is operating, and includes a number of recommendations to improve consumers' interests.
“When the Division of Insurance introduced the new deregulated auto insurance system nearly two years ago, they contended that this system would result in better rates for consumers,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley in a statement. “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve."
The report notes that most consumers haven’t shopped around for insurance -- and therefore, not driving rates down -- while are now increasing. Coakley's office said it is particularly concerned companies are now rating customers on several new factors more closely linked to socio-economic status, rather than to consumers’ driving records.
Among the observations included in the reports:
Many consumers whose rates decreased paid more than they should have after the market was deregulated. Had the regulatory rate-setting process occurred in 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions much greater than those seen under deregulation.
Once ‘managed competition’ began, insurers instantly began seeking higher profit. In 2008, the Division of Insurance accepted target returns in the insurer rate filings that were over 150 percent of the 2007 regulated value for some insurers..
There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available. The website provided by the Division of Insurance does not solve these problems.
Some consumers have not been offered all discounts to which they are entitled, have had difficulty obtaining quotes from agents, and have received different quotes from different agents for the same insurers.
Most Massachusetts consumers purchase insurance through an independent agent, yet most agents typically cannot or do not provide price quotes for more than a couple of carriers.
The reports recommends several moves to help improve the auto insurance market for consumers. These included improved rate proposals, the creation of an insurance Web site to provide side-by-side quotes for all insurers, elimination of penalties for leaving an insurance company early, prohibition of the collection of personal information not needed for rating and the introduction of legislation to ban the use of credit score in insurance ratemaking.
Source
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Mass. AG, Insurers Spar Over State’s Auto Insurance System
Insurers challenged the results of a report from the Massachusetts Attorney General that questions the state’s relatively new auto insurance “managed competition” system.
Under the current system, Massachusetts insurers are allowed to file proposed rates and the Division of Insurance has a certain amount of time to review the filings. Companies can use the rates if they are not disapproved.
Prior to adoption of the current system in April 2008, the state set rates that would be used by all auto insurers, the only state in the country to determine auto rates in this manner.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, though, released a report this month contending that consumers are not benefiting as much as they should under the system.
In a statement, Ms. Coakley said, “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve.”
Ms. Coakley said the report notes that most consumers have not shopped around for insurance, and therefore are not driving rates down. She stated that rates are now actually increasing.
The report says that if the old system had continued through 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions “much greater than those seen under deregulation.” It slams insurers for seeking higher profits since the new system was implemented, and says the system has led to “less transparency in the rate-setting process.”
It also states, “Because insurers are no longer required to offer insurance to consumers they consider undesirable, many good drivers, particularly in urban areas, may be non-renewed or denied coverage.”
However, a survey of 4,500 drivers found that the number of drivers in the residual market is declining, “meaning that more drivers are able to find acceptable insurance premium and service options among competing companies in the marketplace.”
The survey was conducted by the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR) in April 2009—with minorities and urban drivers “over-sampled to ensure that their experiences were accurately reflected”—and one-on-one interviews with over 50 insurance agents and executives.
The survey also found that average premiums per vehicle dropped 8.2 percent during the first year under managed competition, compared to a 5.2 percent decline the previous year under the former system.
Paul Tetrault, state affairs manager for the Northeast for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, criticized the attorney general’s findings, saying, “The attorney general opposed the transition to managed competition at every opportunity. Now that it has been remarkably successful for more than a year and a half, bringing not market disruption as critics predicted but rather lower prices for good drivers and more choices in the marketplace, it is incredible that the attorney general would continue to undermine that success.”
Changing the system now, he added, would return Massachusetts to a system where rates would be “highly politicized.”
Edmund Kelly, chairman, president and CEO of Liberty Mutual Group, also defended the results of the new system.
In a statement he said, “To better meet increased consumer demand under ‘managed competition,’ we lowered our prices, added new products and improved service across the state. As a result we have thousands of new customers, and over 10 percent growth since managed competition began last year. That tells us that competition is working.”
He added that Liberty Mutual is adding 400 new jobs in the state as a sign of its commitment to the new system.
The OCABR survey and attorney general report found common ground in calling for better outreach and education.
The attorney general report said, “There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available.”
The OCABR survey noted, “Not all consumers availed themselves of the new system in the first year. Some believed shopping around would be time-consuming, they were skeptical that they would save money, they found it difficult to compare insurance policies from different companies, and they believed they could not change insurance carriers before a policy had expired.”
Source
Under the current system, Massachusetts insurers are allowed to file proposed rates and the Division of Insurance has a certain amount of time to review the filings. Companies can use the rates if they are not disapproved.
Prior to adoption of the current system in April 2008, the state set rates that would be used by all auto insurers, the only state in the country to determine auto rates in this manner.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, though, released a report this month contending that consumers are not benefiting as much as they should under the system.
In a statement, Ms. Coakley said, “While the long-term results of this new system remain to be seen, our office is concerned that consumers may not, in fact, be getting the best rates and the protections they deserve.”
Ms. Coakley said the report notes that most consumers have not shopped around for insurance, and therefore are not driving rates down. She stated that rates are now actually increasing.
The report says that if the old system had continued through 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions “much greater than those seen under deregulation.” It slams insurers for seeking higher profits since the new system was implemented, and says the system has led to “less transparency in the rate-setting process.”
It also states, “Because insurers are no longer required to offer insurance to consumers they consider undesirable, many good drivers, particularly in urban areas, may be non-renewed or denied coverage.”
However, a survey of 4,500 drivers found that the number of drivers in the residual market is declining, “meaning that more drivers are able to find acceptable insurance premium and service options among competing companies in the marketplace.”
The survey was conducted by the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR) in April 2009—with minorities and urban drivers “over-sampled to ensure that their experiences were accurately reflected”—and one-on-one interviews with over 50 insurance agents and executives.
The survey also found that average premiums per vehicle dropped 8.2 percent during the first year under managed competition, compared to a 5.2 percent decline the previous year under the former system.
Paul Tetrault, state affairs manager for the Northeast for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, criticized the attorney general’s findings, saying, “The attorney general opposed the transition to managed competition at every opportunity. Now that it has been remarkably successful for more than a year and a half, bringing not market disruption as critics predicted but rather lower prices for good drivers and more choices in the marketplace, it is incredible that the attorney general would continue to undermine that success.”
Changing the system now, he added, would return Massachusetts to a system where rates would be “highly politicized.”
Edmund Kelly, chairman, president and CEO of Liberty Mutual Group, also defended the results of the new system.
In a statement he said, “To better meet increased consumer demand under ‘managed competition,’ we lowered our prices, added new products and improved service across the state. As a result we have thousands of new customers, and over 10 percent growth since managed competition began last year. That tells us that competition is working.”
He added that Liberty Mutual is adding 400 new jobs in the state as a sign of its commitment to the new system.
The OCABR survey and attorney general report found common ground in calling for better outreach and education.
The attorney general report said, “There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available.”
The OCABR survey noted, “Not all consumers availed themselves of the new system in the first year. Some believed shopping around would be time-consuming, they were skeptical that they would save money, they found it difficult to compare insurance policies from different companies, and they believed they could not change insurance carriers before a policy had expired.”
Source
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Michigan Auto Insurance Bills Stall As Senate Adjourns Without Acting
The Michigan Senate adjourned before Christmas without taking action on a property/casualty insurance bill package already passed by the House of Representatives.
The package would, among other things, give the insurance commissioner more authority over rates and strip insurers of their ability to use occupation, education level or credit scores in underwriting or pricing.
The legislation mirrors recommendations contained in a report by the state’s consumer advocate, Melvin "Butch" Hollowell, in February. Many Democrats and urban lawmakers are supporting it, while many Republicans and the insurance are opposing it.
Insurers had warned that if the measure passed, auto insurers would leave the state, exacerbating insurance problems and unemployment. Insurers employ more than 50,000 people in the state.
“We are extraordinarily pleased that the Michigan Senate did not take up these bills before adjournment. This will give us time to educate legislators on the importance of underwriting tools in not only assessing risk but keeping rates low,” said Erin Collins, Mid-Atlantic state affairs manager for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC).
The bill package was introduced earlier this month and was quickly approved by the House Insurance Committee, and then the full House.
Supporters believe that the legislation will make insurance pricing fairer and help control prices, which they contend have been going up especially for urban motorists despite fewer miles being driven and fewer motor vehicle deaths.
"This is a great day in the state of Michigan," said Rep. Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit, after the House passed the bills. "This chamber is ... protecting the pocketbooks of our citizens."
"Detroit residents are sick and tired of the insurance companies jacking up their rates because of factors like credit history, occupation or education level -– these are non-issues when it comes to one's ability to drive," said Rep. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit. "Our plan brings some much-needed relief for our residents and reforms that will ensure that insurance companies play by the rules."
The package includes bills that would require the insurance commissioner’s approval before any new rates could go into effect and that would prohibit rate increases on good drivers who are not at fault in accidents.
Another bill would create a low-cost pilot program for low-income residents with good driving records.
Still another would restrict the hiring of former insurance commissioners by the insurance industry.
The package has been opposed by the Michigan Insurance Coalition, which represents insurers. They say the bills would cost consumers more, create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and drive insurance companies and their jobs to other states.
The industry contends that the bills fail to address one of the major causes of rising insurance costs in Michigan: the state’s unique mandate of unlimited lifetime medical benefits to people injured in car accidents.
Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the industry’s Insurance Information Institute and an economist, told lawmakers that no other state in the country provides unlimited no-fault benefits because to do so is expensive.
“So what is driving Michigan’s auto insurance costs up in both absolute and relative terms? While the cost drivers influencing the price of auto insurance in Michigan are similar to those in other states in most respects, there is one glaring exception—its unlimited threshold for no-fault auto insurance claims,” Hartwig testified before the Michigan House Insurance committee.
Hartwig noted that the average no-fault auto insurance claim in Michigan rose 250 percent, to $31,883 in 2007 from $9,103 in 1998, because the “system operates with virtually no checks or balances.” Unlike other states, Michigan has no medical fee schedules, no utilization controls or treatment protocols, and no state insurance fraud bureau to prosecute abuse in the no-fault system.
The average auto insurance policyholder in Michigan spent $928 in 2007, compared with $795 for the typical U.S. driver in that same year, making Michigan’s rates the eleventh highest in the nation.
Hartwig said that efforts to either restrict or ban certain underwriting tools, such as credit-based insurance scores, will not lower auto insurance premiums. Likewise, he said, efforts to create low cost policies without also reducing the benefits provided are doomed to failure. Such programs implicitly require subsidies, he stated.
Source
The package would, among other things, give the insurance commissioner more authority over rates and strip insurers of their ability to use occupation, education level or credit scores in underwriting or pricing.
The legislation mirrors recommendations contained in a report by the state’s consumer advocate, Melvin "Butch" Hollowell, in February. Many Democrats and urban lawmakers are supporting it, while many Republicans and the insurance are opposing it.
Insurers had warned that if the measure passed, auto insurers would leave the state, exacerbating insurance problems and unemployment. Insurers employ more than 50,000 people in the state.
“We are extraordinarily pleased that the Michigan Senate did not take up these bills before adjournment. This will give us time to educate legislators on the importance of underwriting tools in not only assessing risk but keeping rates low,” said Erin Collins, Mid-Atlantic state affairs manager for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC).
The bill package was introduced earlier this month and was quickly approved by the House Insurance Committee, and then the full House.
Supporters believe that the legislation will make insurance pricing fairer and help control prices, which they contend have been going up especially for urban motorists despite fewer miles being driven and fewer motor vehicle deaths.
"This is a great day in the state of Michigan," said Rep. Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit, after the House passed the bills. "This chamber is ... protecting the pocketbooks of our citizens."
"Detroit residents are sick and tired of the insurance companies jacking up their rates because of factors like credit history, occupation or education level -– these are non-issues when it comes to one's ability to drive," said Rep. Bert Johnson, D-Detroit. "Our plan brings some much-needed relief for our residents and reforms that will ensure that insurance companies play by the rules."
The package includes bills that would require the insurance commissioner’s approval before any new rates could go into effect and that would prohibit rate increases on good drivers who are not at fault in accidents.
Another bill would create a low-cost pilot program for low-income residents with good driving records.
Still another would restrict the hiring of former insurance commissioners by the insurance industry.
The package has been opposed by the Michigan Insurance Coalition, which represents insurers. They say the bills would cost consumers more, create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and drive insurance companies and their jobs to other states.
The industry contends that the bills fail to address one of the major causes of rising insurance costs in Michigan: the state’s unique mandate of unlimited lifetime medical benefits to people injured in car accidents.
Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the industry’s Insurance Information Institute and an economist, told lawmakers that no other state in the country provides unlimited no-fault benefits because to do so is expensive.
“So what is driving Michigan’s auto insurance costs up in both absolute and relative terms? While the cost drivers influencing the price of auto insurance in Michigan are similar to those in other states in most respects, there is one glaring exception—its unlimited threshold for no-fault auto insurance claims,” Hartwig testified before the Michigan House Insurance committee.
Hartwig noted that the average no-fault auto insurance claim in Michigan rose 250 percent, to $31,883 in 2007 from $9,103 in 1998, because the “system operates with virtually no checks or balances.” Unlike other states, Michigan has no medical fee schedules, no utilization controls or treatment protocols, and no state insurance fraud bureau to prosecute abuse in the no-fault system.
The average auto insurance policyholder in Michigan spent $928 in 2007, compared with $795 for the typical U.S. driver in that same year, making Michigan’s rates the eleventh highest in the nation.
Hartwig said that efforts to either restrict or ban certain underwriting tools, such as credit-based insurance scores, will not lower auto insurance premiums. Likewise, he said, efforts to create low cost policies without also reducing the benefits provided are doomed to failure. Such programs implicitly require subsidies, he stated.
Source
Friday, January 15, 2010
Phila. auto-theft law gets mixed reviews
Legislation that would help auto-theft victims in Philadelphia avoid the additional burden of having to pay for their cars being towed and impounded after their vehicles are recovered by police is drawing mixed reviews.
The measure by City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke would require police to call vehicle owners and give them an hour to recover their vehicles.
The current policy calls for private tow trucks to remove stolen vehicles located by police. Police stay with the vehicle for 30 minutes while the owner is contacted, officials said. If the owners cannot be reached in 30 minutes, the vehicle is towed, requiring owners to pay a $150 towing charge and a $25-a-day storage fee.
"If you have full [auto insurance] coverage with all the bells and whistles, the insurance company will reimburse you for the cost," Clarke said. "The reality is most people have limited coverage that doesn't cover that."
This year through Sunday, there were 5,636 vehicles stolen in Philadelphia and 4,829 recovered, according to police. Officials said auto thefts were down 24 percent this year.
Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said he opposed the measure because of the amount of time it would require of police officers.
"When you look at 4,800 cars being recovered, and you think about the length of time that we're asking police officers to be out of service waiting for someone to come from who-knows-where, that's a lot of lost man hours," Ramsey said.
Ramsey said the current 30-minute wait gives officers time to complete paperwork and wait for a tow truck to come.
"To extend that time beyond that would probably not be in the interest of public safety," he said.
Clarke said, "We're simply saying police should notify the owners and in the course of their patrols come back and see if the vehicle is still there and then call the tow operator. I don't want to have a police officer taken off the street for any amount of time."
The legislation would also reduce the towing fee to $105, Clarke said. He said he introduced a bill about three years ago that cut the city's portion of the towing fee to $15 from about $60.
The councilman said he thought the total fee would be reduced by $45, but it was not.
"Essentially, the tow operators have been getting a windfall. They now get an additional $45. So the second part of my bill would reduce that," Clarke said.
A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for 2 p.m. today in City Council.
"We should give proper notification, which we do, but we should give adequate time for that individual to reclaim their vehicle," Clarke said.
City Consumer Affairs Director Lance Haver said he supported the bill as a way to help consumers, whom he said are being "victimized twice. Once by the criminal who stole their car, and a second time by the insurance industry that is not covering the cost."
Haver said a change in state insurance regulations could eliminate the problem.
"If the state insurance commissioner insisted that every insurance company cover the cost of towing and storage of any car that is stolen, then the city wouldn't be in the awkward position of trying to collect the actual cost," Haver said.
"Councilman Clarke is doing consumers a huge favor by giving them an opportunity to recover the car and keeping the fee as low as possible," Haver said
Source
The measure by City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke would require police to call vehicle owners and give them an hour to recover their vehicles.
The current policy calls for private tow trucks to remove stolen vehicles located by police. Police stay with the vehicle for 30 minutes while the owner is contacted, officials said. If the owners cannot be reached in 30 minutes, the vehicle is towed, requiring owners to pay a $150 towing charge and a $25-a-day storage fee.
"If you have full [auto insurance] coverage with all the bells and whistles, the insurance company will reimburse you for the cost," Clarke said. "The reality is most people have limited coverage that doesn't cover that."
This year through Sunday, there were 5,636 vehicles stolen in Philadelphia and 4,829 recovered, according to police. Officials said auto thefts were down 24 percent this year.
Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey said he opposed the measure because of the amount of time it would require of police officers.
"When you look at 4,800 cars being recovered, and you think about the length of time that we're asking police officers to be out of service waiting for someone to come from who-knows-where, that's a lot of lost man hours," Ramsey said.
Ramsey said the current 30-minute wait gives officers time to complete paperwork and wait for a tow truck to come.
"To extend that time beyond that would probably not be in the interest of public safety," he said.
Clarke said, "We're simply saying police should notify the owners and in the course of their patrols come back and see if the vehicle is still there and then call the tow operator. I don't want to have a police officer taken off the street for any amount of time."
The legislation would also reduce the towing fee to $105, Clarke said. He said he introduced a bill about three years ago that cut the city's portion of the towing fee to $15 from about $60.
The councilman said he thought the total fee would be reduced by $45, but it was not.
"Essentially, the tow operators have been getting a windfall. They now get an additional $45. So the second part of my bill would reduce that," Clarke said.
A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for 2 p.m. today in City Council.
"We should give proper notification, which we do, but we should give adequate time for that individual to reclaim their vehicle," Clarke said.
City Consumer Affairs Director Lance Haver said he supported the bill as a way to help consumers, whom he said are being "victimized twice. Once by the criminal who stole their car, and a second time by the insurance industry that is not covering the cost."
Haver said a change in state insurance regulations could eliminate the problem.
"If the state insurance commissioner insisted that every insurance company cover the cost of towing and storage of any car that is stolen, then the city wouldn't be in the awkward position of trying to collect the actual cost," Haver said.
"Councilman Clarke is doing consumers a huge favor by giving them an opportunity to recover the car and keeping the fee as low as possible," Haver said
Source
Monday, December 28, 2009
State Senate dumps auto insurance reform bil
State Senators voted down a bill to streamline the price setting of auto insurance premiums. The bill, which failed by a margin of 21-14 would have banned insurance companies from determining rates based on risky regions, such as urban areas with high vehicle theft.
State Senator Roger Kahn, a Saginaw Township Republican, voted against the bill, saying people living in the Saginaw County area would be forced to pay between 17-24 percent more in their premiums.
“Insurance reforms are ok,” Kahn said. “However it's unfair to force 3 out of 4 Michigan drivers and in particular the people I represent to subsidize the premiums of drivers in high risk areas,” he said.
State Senator John Gleason, Democrat from Flushing, voted against it as well but said reform is still needed.
Meanwhile MidMichigan residents said they want something done to level the playing field. “Right now insurance is outrageous!” said Saginaw Pastor Kennith Simon.
"Some of my members live on the west side, some on the east side and they tell me "Pastor Simon, what I pay over on the east side is much more than what some members pay on the west side."
Sen. Kahn said there are some other bills for consideration that may handle auto insurance reform differently. It is not quite sure when those bills will be released from committee and to the full Senate for a vote.
Source
State Senator Roger Kahn, a Saginaw Township Republican, voted against the bill, saying people living in the Saginaw County area would be forced to pay between 17-24 percent more in their premiums.
“Insurance reforms are ok,” Kahn said. “However it's unfair to force 3 out of 4 Michigan drivers and in particular the people I represent to subsidize the premiums of drivers in high risk areas,” he said.
State Senator John Gleason, Democrat from Flushing, voted against it as well but said reform is still needed.
Meanwhile MidMichigan residents said they want something done to level the playing field. “Right now insurance is outrageous!” said Saginaw Pastor Kennith Simon.
"Some of my members live on the west side, some on the east side and they tell me "Pastor Simon, what I pay over on the east side is much more than what some members pay on the west side."
Sen. Kahn said there are some other bills for consideration that may handle auto insurance reform differently. It is not quite sure when those bills will be released from committee and to the full Senate for a vote.
Source
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Poll shows consumers divided on auto coverage
Pollsters asked some Ontario residents earlier this month whether they think the cost of auto insurance is very important.
Seventy per cent said it is, while 67 per cent also said coverage is very important – a virtual dead heat. The difference came down to 10 individuals in a group of 327 contacted by Harris/Decima.
Costs could rise in importance as more motorists are hit with steep price increases on their auto insurance premiums when they receive their renewal notices. Several major insurers, reacting to the soaring cost of injury claims, have received approval in the past 15 months to raise their premiums by an average of more than 10 per cent.
But the association of therapy clinics that sponsored the recent poll thinks the message to be drawn from the results should be: Don't mess with the health-services coverage.
The provincial government is expected to announce what changes it has in mind for auto insurance benefits and regulations within days. Consumers may be given more choice about how much health coverage to buy, but no details are known.
"Protection is just as important to people as affordability," Nick Gurevich, a clinic owner who speaks for the Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers, insisted in an interview.
But it's clear when speaking with him that he would accept some limits, or a choice of coverage limits for minor sprains, strains and whiplash injuries.
"We are, in fact, not against that proposal, but we part ways on the mechanics of how it should work," he said. ``What happens if a brain injury is diagnosed a year later?"
What he opposes strongly is giving consumers the choice of buying just $25,000 of coverage for minor injuries and for more serious injuries. The poll showed many consumers do not know much, or spend much time, researching their auto-insurance coverage.
The clinics in his association supply such services as physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy, occupational therapy, psychological treatment, acupuncture and speech-language therapy.
Most of these services are not generally paid for by Ontario's government-run health insurance plan, although a sizeable minority of the persons polled thought they were.
It could be argued the association's poll was designed to extract a desired set of results. (What survey that is sponsored by an interest group does not do that?)
Pollsters asked at one point whether it is the government's moral responsibility to ensure "adequate coverage" or ensure that auto insurance is affordable.
Not surprisingly – given the lack of definition of what adequate would be – more were in favour of adequate coverage than more affordable insurance. Nearly twice as many said it would be a bad idea for the government to accept an insurance industry proposal for a "stripped-down version" of auto insurance.
Barbara Sulzenko-Laurie, vice-president of policy at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said nothing described as "stripped down" is likely to appeal to consumers.
"Everyone knows what a stripped-down car is," she chuckled. "You don't want to drive it."
A more revealing question, she suggested, would be to ask consumers whether their definition of adequate coverage for a sprain or strain would include "17 weeks of housekeeping service," or merely enough therapy treatments to return to their normal activities.
The problem for consumers who are very concerned about price is they are forced by law to pay for somebody else who does want their house cleaned while they recover from a pain in their neck, back or ankle.
Source
Seventy per cent said it is, while 67 per cent also said coverage is very important – a virtual dead heat. The difference came down to 10 individuals in a group of 327 contacted by Harris/Decima.
Costs could rise in importance as more motorists are hit with steep price increases on their auto insurance premiums when they receive their renewal notices. Several major insurers, reacting to the soaring cost of injury claims, have received approval in the past 15 months to raise their premiums by an average of more than 10 per cent.
But the association of therapy clinics that sponsored the recent poll thinks the message to be drawn from the results should be: Don't mess with the health-services coverage.
The provincial government is expected to announce what changes it has in mind for auto insurance benefits and regulations within days. Consumers may be given more choice about how much health coverage to buy, but no details are known.
"Protection is just as important to people as affordability," Nick Gurevich, a clinic owner who speaks for the Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers, insisted in an interview.
But it's clear when speaking with him that he would accept some limits, or a choice of coverage limits for minor sprains, strains and whiplash injuries.
"We are, in fact, not against that proposal, but we part ways on the mechanics of how it should work," he said. ``What happens if a brain injury is diagnosed a year later?"
What he opposes strongly is giving consumers the choice of buying just $25,000 of coverage for minor injuries and for more serious injuries. The poll showed many consumers do not know much, or spend much time, researching their auto-insurance coverage.
The clinics in his association supply such services as physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy, occupational therapy, psychological treatment, acupuncture and speech-language therapy.
Most of these services are not generally paid for by Ontario's government-run health insurance plan, although a sizeable minority of the persons polled thought they were.
It could be argued the association's poll was designed to extract a desired set of results. (What survey that is sponsored by an interest group does not do that?)
Pollsters asked at one point whether it is the government's moral responsibility to ensure "adequate coverage" or ensure that auto insurance is affordable.
Not surprisingly – given the lack of definition of what adequate would be – more were in favour of adequate coverage than more affordable insurance. Nearly twice as many said it would be a bad idea for the government to accept an insurance industry proposal for a "stripped-down version" of auto insurance.
Barbara Sulzenko-Laurie, vice-president of policy at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said nothing described as "stripped down" is likely to appeal to consumers.
"Everyone knows what a stripped-down car is," she chuckled. "You don't want to drive it."
A more revealing question, she suggested, would be to ask consumers whether their definition of adequate coverage for a sprain or strain would include "17 weeks of housekeeping service," or merely enough therapy treatments to return to their normal activities.
The problem for consumers who are very concerned about price is they are forced by law to pay for somebody else who does want their house cleaned while they recover from a pain in their neck, back or ankle.
Source
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Affordable Auto Insurance - Utilizing Auto Insurance for Your Business is Smart Move
As with any business, utilizing business automotive insurance helps your business to keep moving forward. If you own a small business, you have to take into consideration allowing a budget for automotive insurance. This will help to make sure that you provide the best for your employees.
It can be difficult for a business to operate without a company automotive insurance policy. Even if your business is extremely small, having insurance helps to show your customers that you are a stable company. As the owner of the business, it is up to you to get the correct insurance for your business’s needed. It is of the utmost importance to protect your company vehicles.
Utilizing insurance websites that offer multiple quotes at once can be helpful in your looking for the right insurance to fit your company. Keep in mind that carrying automotive liability, comprehensive coverage, uninsured and under insured drivers coverage is included in your policy. This will help protect you and your employees with medical fees, collision coverage, and the coverage of the business’s cars.
There are many insurance companies on the market today that would love to have you as a customer. The most important part of buying automotive insurance should be that you are dealing with a well-established company that has a history of claim pay-outs so that you do not have to put your business on hold to fight to get your vehicles fixed.
Having a good insurance company will help to make sure that when you get your vehicles repaired quickly, that the repairs will be covered and you will be reimbursed. This will help in getting your vehicles back on the road in less time and get your employees back to work quicker.
Even though you business might be small, it must look professional in all aspects and carrying the right insurance on your company cars is a step in this direction. This will put you in league with the bigger companies and clients are more likely to use an insured business than if you didn’t have insurance. If you are looking to expand your company in the future, making sure you are with an insurance company that can grow with you is a very important thing.
Source
It can be difficult for a business to operate without a company automotive insurance policy. Even if your business is extremely small, having insurance helps to show your customers that you are a stable company. As the owner of the business, it is up to you to get the correct insurance for your business’s needed. It is of the utmost importance to protect your company vehicles.
Utilizing insurance websites that offer multiple quotes at once can be helpful in your looking for the right insurance to fit your company. Keep in mind that carrying automotive liability, comprehensive coverage, uninsured and under insured drivers coverage is included in your policy. This will help protect you and your employees with medical fees, collision coverage, and the coverage of the business’s cars.
There are many insurance companies on the market today that would love to have you as a customer. The most important part of buying automotive insurance should be that you are dealing with a well-established company that has a history of claim pay-outs so that you do not have to put your business on hold to fight to get your vehicles fixed.
Having a good insurance company will help to make sure that when you get your vehicles repaired quickly, that the repairs will be covered and you will be reimbursed. This will help in getting your vehicles back on the road in less time and get your employees back to work quicker.
Even though you business might be small, it must look professional in all aspects and carrying the right insurance on your company cars is a step in this direction. This will put you in league with the bigger companies and clients are more likely to use an insured business than if you didn’t have insurance. If you are looking to expand your company in the future, making sure you are with an insurance company that can grow with you is a very important thing.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)