Baby Stuck in Hospital Because of Insurance Company

Baby Stuck in Hospital Because of Insurance Company

baby Baby Stuck in Hospital Because of Insurance Company insurance milk

A 3-month old baby boy in Nebraska was separated from his parents for 100 days because their insurance company refuses to pay for their baby to be moved.

The baby is in Presbyterian St. Luke’s Hospital in Denver, while his parents live in Lincoln, Nebraska, and have been forced to commute to see their son every other weekend.

Julius James Frack was born on December 30, 2012 weighing one pound, six ounces and was only 12 inches long.

Jennifer and David Frack weren't expecting the baby to arrive soon but had complication with her pregnancy while visiting family in Sydney, Nebraska, after Christmas.

Doctocs in Sydney said that the mom needed needed specialized care and arranged for her to be flown to Presbyterian St. Luke’s Hospital in Denver. Because Julius was so small, he was rushed to the hospital’s NICU.   

The mom healed in a few weeks and was allowed to go home but the baby was too fragile for long drive. Howerver, the parents need to go back to work. And since December, the parents has been spending too much money to drive back and forth from Lincoln to Denver every other weekend.

Fracks asked to have Julius moved since the commute is too much. Doctors told the parents that the baby needs to be transferred by helicopter and doctors at Presbyterian St. Luke’s Hospital helped them fill out paperwork but their insurance company denied the request.

The Fracks’ insurance company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska, released a statement that said, “In general, when our nurses and physician reviewers look at cases such as this, the decision to cover a service is based on whether a ‘medical necessity’ exists,” said Dr. David Filipi, Chief Medical Director, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebrask

source: http://kdvr.com/2013/04/14/parents-separated-from-baby-for-100-days-over-insurance-decision/#ooid=9kOHB5YTqKX8XQn55UgtnqXYpYBIbLXu

Small Businesses would rather pay Penalty than offer Health Insurance

Small Businesses would rather pay Penalty than offer Health Insurance

Obamacare

The Wall Street Journal reports that a number of companies would rather pay government's penalty to break the law and it will be cheaper for them than following it.

Under the Obamacare provision that goes into effect next year, employers with 50 or more full-time workers will be required to provide coverage for employees who work an average of 30 or more hours a week in a given month. An alternative to that mandate is for business owners to pay a $2,000 penalty for each full-time worker over a 30-employee threshold.

Rick Levi owns Consolidated Management based in Des Moines, Iowa that runs cafeterias at schools, offices and jails in 10 states. The law would require him to offer insurance to all of his 102 full-time employees starting in January. Assuming all of them take the coverage, Mr. Levi says the cost of premiums could exceed $500,000 per year if every employee takes the insurance plan. The penalty will cost him around $144,000.

"I've never made a profit in any year of the company that has surpassed that amount," says Mr. Levi, 62 years old. "I don't make enough money."

He says it makes more sense to drop insurance entirely and pay a penalty of about $144,000.

Using Medicaid Dollars for Private Insurance

Using Medicaid Dollars for Private Insurance

Using Medicaid Dollars for Private Insurance

The Obama administration and Republican officials in several states are exploring ways to redirect federal money intended to expand Medicaid, the main public insurance program for the poor, and use it instead to buy private health insurance for Medicaid recipients. The approach could have important benefits for beneficiaries and for the future of health care reform. But the idea also carries big risks. Federal officials will need to enforce strict conditions before agreeing to any redirection of Medicaid dollars that were originally intended to enlarge the Medicaid rolls.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the states could decide whether they want to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more of the uninsured; they can’t be required to do so, as the health reform law intended.

The law provides hugely attractive financial incentives for states to add more people. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of caring for newly eligible enrollees for the first three years, tapering to 90 percent in later years. Even so, some state officials, mostly Republicans, are proposing that the very generous federal financing for expansion be used instead to pay the premiums of poor people on new electronic health care exchanges, created by the reform law, where people can shop for subsidized private insurance.

Private insurance obtained on the exchanges could help poor beneficiaries in several ways. They would be less vulnerable to disruptions every time their incomes fluctuated above or below the boundary line that determines whether they are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, where they would see one array of doctors, or slightly better off and eligible for subsidized insurance on the exchanges, where they might see a completely different group of doctors. Providers would be paid the same amount whether treating a Medicaid recipient or a privately insured patient, potentially creating a wider network of doctors for Medicaid patients. And some poor residents of states resistant to expansion, who would otherwise be frozen out by a glitch in the reform law, could gain coverage through the exchanges.

But the main benefit would be political in that it could engage Republicans in the whole health reform effort, make it easier to carry out the law and reduce the appetite among Congressional Republicans to gut the law.

There are at least two big caveats. The switch would be likely to increase costs for the federal government, and ultimately state governments, because private insurance is almost always more costly than Medicaid. That could force a cutback in the number of people covered because the money won’t go as far. There is also a risk that poor people will end up with fewer benefits and higher cost-sharing on the exchanges despite regulations that should prohibit that.

Federal officials must be vigilant in ensuring that recipients on the exchanges receive the same services and same cost-sharing limits that they would under an expanded Medicaid program. State officials who don’t want to play by those rules would be better off using the generous federal dollars as originally intended — to expand their Medicaid programs to cover many more of their uninsured residents.

nytimes.com

Board meets on Texas Wind Insurance Assoc. future

Board meets on Texas Wind Insurance Assoc. future

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association TWIA

AUSTIN, TX (AP)- The board of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association will have a meeting to determine the future of the agency that provides coverage to homeowners along the coast.

Better known as TWIA, the association has been in serious financial trouble for years. The board is considering putting TWIA into receivership at a meeting on Monday.

The association provides insurance to 266,000 homeowners and businesses who cannot find commercial insurance because of the risk of hurricanes or severe storms. TWIA relies on all of the insurance companies in Texas to help finance it.

But following major hurricanes and mismanagement, many question whether TWIA can provide coverage if another hurricane strikes. The Legislature overhauled the association in 2011, but the problems persist. The board has been searching for a way to become more solvent. 

Tennessee: Pit Bull Insurance Law Would Require Owners To Purchase Policies For Dangerous Dogs

Tennessee: Pit Bull Insurance Law Would Require Owners To Purchase Policies For Dangerous Dogs

Tennessee: Pit Bull Insurance Law Would Require Owners To Purchase Policies For Dangerous Dogs

In Tennessee, a proposed pit bull insurance law would require owners of the controversial dogs to purchase a $25,000 policy for liability against possible attacks.

The proposal has brought controversy among those who work with and own pit bulls. Wendy Jackson, founder of East Tennessee Pit Bull Rescue, said pit bulls are given an unfair reputation and don’t deserve to be targeted.

Much of the problem comes from the owners, Jackson said. Pit bulls tend to attract abusive owners drawn to the “thug mentality” and image, she said.

“Yes, this type of dog is a powerful dog and obviously if they were motivated to do harm they could,” Jackson told WBIR in Tennessee.  “The issue should be controlling people who control the dogs.”

The Tennessee legislature will discuss the pit bull insurance law next week. The bill is sponsored by Representative Brenda Gilmore of Nashville, who is seeking to define “vicious dog” as any animal with a history of causing injury or death to another person, or any dog that “belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.”

Critics view the pit bull insurance law as a way to price poorer residents out of owning pit bulls.

“I don’t think you can legislate these types of issues. What we really focus on is responsible ownership, pet owners who have trained animals, and owners who restrain their animals appropriately,” said Jeff Ashin, CEO of the Young-Williams Animal Center in Knoxville. “Legislation often comes with unintended consequences.”

The proposal comes in the wake of some high-profile pit bull attacks in the past week. In New Orleans, three dogs attacked a 54-year-old woman in her home, leaving her in critical condition after losing both arms, an ear, an eye, and part of her scalp.

A second attack took place in the Bronx, where a pit bull mauled a young girl in an attack captured on surveillance video.

The pit bull insurance is not the only effort to legislate dangerous animals. In Indiana, fatal pit bull attack on a 7-year-old boy has prompted local officials to try to overturn a state law and allow pit bulls to be banned in the city.

inquisitr.com

Mortgage Life Insurance

Mortgage Life Insurance

Mortgage Life Insurance

Mortgage protection insurance or mortgage life insurance is a form of insurance specifically designed to protect a repayment mortgage. If the policyholder were to die while the mortgage life insurance was in force, the policy would pay out a capital sum that will be just sufficient to repay the outstanding mortgage.

Mortgage life insurance is supposed to protect the borrower's ability to repay the mortgage for the lifetime of the mortgage. This is in contrast to Private mortgage insurance, which is meant to protect the lender against the risk of default on the part of the borrower.

The beneficiary of this type of policy is almost always the mortgage company.

Mortgage life insurance disadvantages: The premium you pay is often lumped into the home loan, which means you are paying finance charges on the premium. A healthy nonsmoker can usually beat the price of mortgage life insurance by as much as 50%. Another disadvantage is the insurance stays with the house. In other words, it's not transferable the way regular life insurance is.

Best insurance companies of 2013

Best insurance companies of 2013

Best insurance companies of 2013

Insure.com customer satisfaction report shows which auto, home, health and life insurance companies have the most-satisfied customers.

USAA, American General and Kaiser Permanente earned the highest scores from customers in their respective categories in Insure.com’s annual customer satisfaction study.

Overall satisfaction with insurers’ customer service went up for everyone except auto insurers, where satisfaction levels held steady. And while satisfaction with life insurers went up, they still dropped below health insurers this year for customer service satisfaction.

5,600 insurance customers nationwide were asked to rate their satisfaction with their auto, home, health and life insurance companies.

Here are percentages of customers saying they are “completely” or “somewhat” satisfied with their insurers’ customer service:

Auto insurance customers: 80 percent (2012 results: 80 percent).
Home insurance customers: 76 percent (2012 results: 73 percent).
Life insurance customers:  67 percent (2012 results: 63 percent).
Health insurance customers: 71 percent (2012 results: 61 percent).

For overall scores, companies were judged on five measurements:

Customer service
Claims satisfaction
Value for price paid
Percent who plan to renew
Percent who would recommend the company
       (Life insurance scores did not include claims or renewal questions.)

Winners of Insure.com's 2013 People's Choice Award
(Overall scores out of 100)

Auto insurance

USAA    96.0
Erie Insurance    91.7
Auto-Owners Insurance    88.1

Home insurance

USAA    96.0
Amica Mutual    90.4
Country Insurance    90.2

Life insurance

American General    83.2
Jackson National    80.6
Allstate    80.5

Health insurance

Kaiser Permanente    83.6
BCBS of Illinois    83.3
Humana    83.1

Complete Rankings check here

NY State's Gun Owner Insurance

NY State's Gun Owner Insurance

NY State's Gun Owner Insurance

Democratic Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced Assembly Bill A03908 that would require all gun owners in the state of New York to buy at least $1 million in liability insurance to cover potential damages caused by their guns.

If the bill pass as a law all current New York gun owners would have 30 days to purchase the required liability insurance or face confiscation of the their guns. Future gun buyers would be required to produce proof of insurance at the time of the sale.

The bill also states that in the event a gun is stolen or lost, the owner is legally responsible for all damages resulting from the use of that gun until the theft or loss is reported to police.

Estimates of the costs of a $1 million gun owner liability insurance policy in the media have ranged from a few hundred dollars to as much as $2,000 per year.

Top 5 US States With the Highest Life insurance policies-to-population ratio

Top 5 US States With the Highest Life insurance policies-to-population ratio

Top 5 US States With the Highest Life insurance policies-to-population ratio

State    Policies-to-population ratio
1. Alabama    138.5%
2. Louisiana    110.0%
3. Mississippi    86.7%
4. South Carolina    86.1%
5. District of Columbia    79.7%

Alabama has the highest life insurance policies-to-population ratio in the U.S. with 5.3 million life insurance policies under the population age 15 and older, the state leads the nation with a coverage ratio of 138.5 percent.

Source the American Council of Life Insurers’ 2012 fact book and census data.

Storm victims in Long Island Co-op residents struggles

Storm victims in Long Island Co-op residents struggles

Storm victims in Long Island Co-op residents struggles

Long Islanders co-op residents struggle to rebuild their homes despite of insurance. They say restrictions on insurance coverage and federal disaster aid have left them without enough money for repairs.

Legislators are pushing the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give more help to co-op owners.

Residents typically cannot buy flood insurance to fully cover items such as cabinets, major appliances and floors because of the legal structure of co-ops, where residents do not own their living space. In that case, any common property repairs not covered by insurance or grants may need to be covered out of co-ops' funds or through extra charges that shouldered by residents, on top of the cost of repairing their own units.

FEMA, which administers the National Flood Insurance Program, the nation's primary flood insurance provider, acknowledges that co-ops could face significant financial shortfalls. If a co-op building valued at $10 million were declared a total loss after a natural disaster, and had the maximum $250,000 in flood insurance, "there would be a huge exposure there that would not be covered," an agency spokesman said. But the federal law governing the flood insurance program imposes the limits, the spokesman said.

Four Reasons Your Car makes your insurance Cost More

Four Reasons Your Car makes your insurance Cost More

Reasons Your Car makes your insurance Cost More

Here's a good infographics from progressive that explains why your car affects your insurance rate.

Waldo Fire Victims Bullied By Insurance Companies

Waldo Fire Victims Bullied By Insurance Companies

Waldo Fire Victims Bullied By Insurance Companies

Homeowners affected by the Waldo Canyon Fire feel like they are being bullied by their insurance companies.

Over 100 affected residents were present at a meeting Saturday and there are heated arguments and emotional outburst. A lot stood up for their families and spoke their minds about mistreatment of their fire insurance settlement claims.

The fire victims say they feel abused, neglected and bullied by their insurance companies.

"I've been intimidated, I've been harassed, I’ve been ignored and in the meantime I just want my home back to the pre-loss condition that my policy states I should have,” said Mountain Shadows homeowner Judy Brinkman. “I’m not asking for anything, I don’t want any money from the insurance companies that I am not owed.”

The meeting addresses damage settlements, repairs, property replacement and customer service issues.

Families and homeowners were very emotional as they talked about health issues, improper damage evaluations, and unresponsive adjusters. Many said they are not being properly paid for their losses.

“Everyday you wipe off the dust, you wipe off the suit and ashes. And it got so hot inside the house, that our windows are separated from the house itself” said Peregrine Homeowner Julie Pruitt.

“They've like we don't have to cover that, or the other comment is always, prove that is from the fire. We're just in circular arguments, frustration, anger, resentment, there's just now where to go. You just feel like such a victim,” said Brinkman.

The main issues brought up were : suit, ash and smoke damage, exterior house damage, insurance companies failure to investigate properly, non-responsive insurance adjusters, no time extensions, family health issues caused by the fire, damage not evaluated properly, under insured, suffering from additional costs, not being paid for their losses. Many asked for DORA to investigate their insurance companies, and how they are handling their claims.

“I’m a Vietnam veteran, I went over to Vietnam to protect the people of the United States, and I did my duty. That’s why DORA has to do their duty, and state representatives have to do their duty,” said Mountain Shadows homeowner Ron Haberkorn.

Families who just want to move on after the Waldo Canyon Fire, say the insurance woes are taking a huge emotional toll.

"People just need to be made whole and let people move on, but it's hard to move on when you don't have closure on getting things fixed, and having to struggle through that every day,” said Pruitt.

The newly formed Catastrophic Insurance Complaints in Colorado (CICIC) Association held the meeting at the Colorado Springs Together Facility.

Residents had the chance to offer their issues in order to form some solutions in front of the Colorado Division of Insurance (DORA) as well as local and state leaders and legislators.

If you need help with your Waldo insurance issues, contact CICIC at 719-660-8158.

source kktv

Wedding Insurance

Wedding Insurance

Wedding Insurance

Wedding is expensive and difficult to prepare it takes time, money and sacrifice to set up a wedding to your liking. To make sure it is not ruined by a natural or man-made unfortunate event, it's advisable to have the event insured.

A wedding insurance policy covers cancellation or rescheduling of a marriage due to natural calamities like floods, earthquakes and cyclones, or fire and burglary. It also covers damage to the wedding venue or house of the policyholder due to any such mishap. There are separate covers in the policy and you can opt for the one you want.

You could extend the coverage to include the death of the bride, groom or certain relatives, or an injury to them that may result in their being hospitalised, in case it happens within 10 days prior to the wedding. There's also a public liability cover, which insures any injury to guests due to an accident at the venue. You could also take a cover for jewellery, wedding clothes and cash kept in a safe at home or the venue.

A wedding insurance policy does not cover cancellation of nuptials due to a dispute between the marriage parties, or the bride and groom. Some companies do not extend a cover if the bride or groom is unable to reach the venue due to civil unrest.

Reliance Life Insurance appoints Anup Rau as new CEO

Reliance Life Insurance appoints Anup Rau as new CEO

Reliance Life Insurance Company

The Board of Directors of Reliance Life Insurance Company (RLIC), a part of Reliance CapitalBSE 3.18 % Limited, today announced the appointment of Mr Anup Rau as the new CEO of the company, subject to IRDA approval.

Rau succeeds Malay Ghosh, President and Executive Director, Reliance Life Insurance.

"Mr Malay Ghosh has played a pivotal role in building the company in challenging times. He also played a key role in forging our relationship with Nippon Life Insurance, the largest private life insurer in Japan, as a strategic partner in the company. He will continue to guide the company as a member on the Board," said Sam Ghosh, CEO, Reliance Capital.

"I am happy to announce the appointment of Anup Rau as the new CEO of Reliance Life Insurance with immediate effect. Rau has extensive experience in the Indian Life Insurance industry and we look to strengthen our leadership position in the life insurance business with him at the helm", added Ghosh. Rau will also be on the Board of Reliance Life Insurance.

Anup Rau, aged 39 years, joins Reliance Life Insurance from HDFC Life Insurance and brings with him over 17 years of industry experience. As the Head of Sales and Distribution in HDFC Life he was responsible for managing Sales Commercials, Distribution Operations and Sales Support.

20 states now have approval to run insurance exchanges

20 states now have approval to run insurance exchanges

insurance exchanges U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the latest states to earn conditional approval to operate state-based health insurance exchanges, they are: Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Vermont, and Utah.

The grand total of states ready to operate their own exchanges are now 20. The other states already granted approval are Washington, D.C., Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

“States across the country are working to implement the healthcare law and build a marketplace that works for their residents,” says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “In 10 months, consumers in all 50 states will have access to a new marketplace where they will be able to easily purchase affordable, high-quality health insurance plans, and today’s guidance will provide the information states need to guide their continued work.”

Another 24 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—have declined to operate their own exchanges, defaulting to a federal exchange instead, according to data collected by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

The six remaining states—Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, and West Virginia—are still in the planning stages for their exchanges, according to Kaiser. They have until February 15 to apply for State Partnership Exchange Approval, HHS says.

Consumers will be able to access the exchanges, mandated by the Affordable Care Act, beginning in 2014. The program will allow the public to buy insurance from qualified health plans directly through these marketplaces and may be eligible for tax credits to help pay for their health insurance.