DOL vs Small Group

Via email from our friends at Cornerstone:

"The Department of Labor, Health & Human Services and Treasury recently issued proposed regulations that would eliminate the "small plan" exemption currently in place for small employers sponsoring a group health plan with fewer than 100 participants.

If adopted, small employers would be required to furnish the same Form 5500 information to the Department of Labor as large employers." [emphasis in original]

Now why would this be a big deal?

Well, the estimated cost "will add 2.2 million work hours and $241.6 million in reporting costs for small employers (both self-insured and fully-insured)."

Think this won't affect you?

Well remember, all of these additional costs will be passed on to consumers. Not to mention, employers, particularly small employers, have limited funds, so this could very well cost someone(s) their job, or potential job.

What can you do about it?

Well, the DOL is taking comments about it through December 5th, and the folks at Cornerstone have helpfully provided us with an example:

"I am requesting that the Department of Labor reconsider the proposed Annual Reporting and Disclosure rules relating to Form 5500 and Schedule J.

The proposed rules that would eliminate the small group exemption on Form 5500 filings plus the additional data collection requirements on Schedule J will add 2.2 million work hours and would cost small employers $241.6 million.

Small employers are already challenged to stay current and compliant with excessive federal, state and local rules and regulations. The proposed changes place yet another unnecessary burden on small employers.

I urge the Department of Labor to reconsider this proposal."

Blame the Agents

After almost 7 years of having the admini-screwup blame everyone for what is "wrong" we now have another fall guy.

The economy was (and presumably still is) rotten because of Bush. Global warming caused ISIS. The Republicans at the state level are why Obamacare did not cover more people.

And in the face of rising health insurance premiums there is one more patsy.

The agents and insurance carriers are responsible for higher health insurance premiums.

HHS said earlier this month that about 2.5 million people eligible for tax credits to lower the cost of their premiums are missing out, because they are buying their insurance through insurers or brokers instead of the state and federal exchanges. - USA Today

Yes, the agents are to blame for higher premiums.

Now that most agents have left the health insurance business who will they blame next?

I guess that problem is left to the next president.

Whoever he may be.

And then there is this gem.

Even those who weren't eligible for tax credits in the past should apply again, because they may qualify now that many rates are much higher,

Agents (and possibly global warming) led to higher premiums but now you can thank the agents for making premiums lower.

You are welcome.

#ObamacareSucks

With Six You Get Genworth

Not sure what to make of this, but:

"China Oceanwide agrees to pay $2.7 billion for Genworth"

Oceanwide already owns a securities brokerage and a P&C insurer, so one supposed this makes sense in terms of "fit."

The deal still needs Delaware regulators' seal-of-approval.

I reached out to Randy G, one of my favorite LCi gurus to see what he thought of this development, and he replied that it was "kind of a surprise for sure. It’s almost like AT&T buying Time Warner for $86Billion….another surprise this morning! Don’t know much about this merger other than it provides Genworth with about $1.0 Billion dollars immediately."

Which may be badly needed; back in February, we reported that the company seemed to be in some serious financial straits.

So, wait-and-see, for now.

Another 1,000 Words on #ObamaCare

 [click graph to embiggen ]

(Full story here)

And to add insult to injury, FoIB Jeff M alerts us that:

"Obamacare Rates to Skyrocket 50-75 Percent in Arizona"

Funny way of spelling "3000% rate decrease," no?

North Star State vs ObamaCare

A few weeks ago, we reported on Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton's explicit acknowledgement that the ObamaTax wasn't working as advertised:

"Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton on Wednesday said that the increase in health insurance costs in Minnesota highlights “some serious blemishes right now and serious deficiencies” in the federal health care law known as Obamacare."

Now, we learn that there's more here than meets the eye:

"What’s not widely known is that taxpayers are also being gouged for millions of dollars a year on their property tax bills because of ongoing problems with MNsure, the state’s health insurance."

Turns out - #Surprise - that because the state's Exchange has never actually worked as planned, they've been shoveling in major bucks to keep it going:

"The Minnesota Association of Counties estimates taxpayers spend an additional $27 million annually to work around the flawed online METS technology."

And that's just this year. how's that saying go again?

Oh, yeah:

"That which can't go on, won't."

[Hat Tip: Powerline]

Un(?)Intended Consequences: Deathwatch edition

Last spring, we noted a new Golden State law essentially legalizing assisted suicide. At the time, we remarked only that it served as a convenience for those so inclined to save the airfare to Switzerland.

But of course, slippery slopes are, well, slippery, and now we have an insurance carrier who took the new law to its logical (if macabre) conclusion:

"[O]ne young mother says her insurance company denied her coverage for chemotherapy treatment after originally agreeing to provide the fiscal support for it, but indicated it would be willing to pay for assisted suicide instead."

This really shouldn't come as any great surprise: after all, it's simply the logical outcome of the ObamaTax's IPAB provision. How's that, you ask?

Well, as we've noted before, that feature is really just our version of the MVNHS©'s Liverpool Pathway. Admittedly, that's actually the heavy hand of government implementing the law as written, but is it demonstrably different in this case? After all, the insurer is simply following the guidelines set forth by the state as to whom is worthy of life-extending treatment.

O Brave New World, indeed.

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Exit, Stage Right

So after (literally!) losing sleep for several weeks, I finally came to a decision about Open Enrollment v4, and sent this to my ACA insureds:

"To my valued clients:

As we enter the 4th annual Open Enrollment season, I've had to make some difficult decisions. Due to the significant changes carriers have made to their compensation schedules (aka commissions), I don’t believe that I can continue to offer the kind of comprehensive service to which I, and you, have become accustomed.

On the other hand, I'm loathe to just leave folks, many of whom I've had the pleasure to serve for many years, just "twisting in the wind."

The good news is that one of my valued partners, Cornerstone Brokerage, has a terrific program to which I can refer most clients. They're equipped and staffed to offer the same kind of help and support that I've provided, and I've worked with them long enough (20+ years) to trust their judgment and integrity. And the best part is that I'll still be able to help with any service or claims issues that you might have.

And now, the logistics: as your renewals come in, I'll forward your contact information (email and phone number) to the folks at Cornerstone. Please let me know as soon as possible if you'd prefer that I not do that, and of course I’m happy to answer any of your questions about this new process.

Thank you all so very much for the opportunity to have been of service."

Thus far, the response has been positive, with clients expressing their disappointment but appreciating that I'm not just walking away from them. As to next year's season, well, we'll see.