Family Insurance – Namiaz Sat, 30 Jul 2022 02:14:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Family Insurance – Namiaz 32 32 Reps. DeFazio, Ferguson, Nadler, Cicilline, Buck send bipartisan letter to Justice Department requesting information on federal antitrust enforcement in health insurance industry Thu, 28 Jul 2022 11:07:18 +0000

WASHINGTON, July 28 — Rep. Pierre DeFazioD-Oregonissued the following press release and letter on July 27, 2022:

Yesterday, Reps. Pierre DeFazio (OR-04), Drew Ferguson (GA-03), Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), Ken Buck (CO-04) and David Cicilline (RI-01) sent a letter to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting information on how the Department exercises its expanded powers to clamp down on anti-competitive practices within the health insurance industry. DeFazio’s bipartisan Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act (CHIRA), which was signed into law in January 2021closed an outdated special interest loophole, allowing the DOJ to enforce federal antitrust law in the health insurance industry.

“Repealing the archaic antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry was a monumental legislative achievement, but we must ensure that justice department and the Federal Trade Commission use their expanded powers to clamp down on any anti-competitive practice in this wealthy industry,” said DeFazio Representative. “Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly one in four Americans — including insured Americans — were skipping medical care and prescription drug doses due to high costs. Today, while medical care affordable prices are more important than ever, health insurance companies continue to drive up prices to consumers and reap huge profits on the backs of the elderly, working families and ordinary Americans.The Department must control the industry, and CHIRA is an essential tool to do so.

In the letter, the members state, “By repealing the antitrust exemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act removes a major impediment to the scope of the Department’s enforcement power over the insurance industry. disease and further empowers the Department to address anti-competitive practices. practices that have undermined competition and harmed consumers for decades. justice department noted in support of the enactment of the law, the removal of this exemption “will strengthen the Antitrust Division ability to investigate and prosecute anti-competitive behavior.”

Rep. DeFazio’s Adoption of the law on the reform of competitive health insurance Congress unanimously and was promulgated in January 2021. The letter sent yesterday to justice department aims to ensure the proper application of the law and requires that the justice department inform Congress should it need additional resources to enforce federal antitrust laws.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act, passed in 1945, previously exempted the health insurance business from federal antitrust laws that protect and promote fair competition. CHIRA repealed this outdated exemption for the health insurance sector and gave the justice department and the Federal Trade Commission the power to enforce federal antitrust laws against anticompetitive behavior by health insurance companies.

* * *

To: The Honorable Jonathan Canterdeputy attorney general, Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, washington d.c. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Kanter:

We write about the antitrust authority of the justice department (DOJ) in health insurance markets following the enactment of the bipartisan Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2020.

The enactment of this law amending the McCarran-Ferguson Act was a monumental and positive step for competition and consumer protection. And the amendment was much needed: In the decades since the McCarran-Ferguson Act was enacted in 1945, health insurance brokers became increasingly consolidated, leaving the industry ripe for abuse. With few exceptions, the McCarran-Ferguson Act gave health insurance companies carte blanche to exercise market power and collude to drive up premiums, inflate consumer prices, restrict competition, and deprive consumers of choice./1

Despite the clearly anti-competitive nature of these practices, federal enforcement has been limited in this area due to the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s outdated antitrust exemption and the courts’ overly broad interpretation of that exemption. For example, as the Department is aware, as recently as December 2020, a United States District Court dismissed antitrust complaints against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association for allegedly conspiring with its members to deny patients and providers insurance coverage for telemetry monitors, believing the Association to be immune from suit./2

By repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s antitrust exemption, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act removes a major impediment to the extent of the Department’s enforcement power over the health insurance industry and further empowers the Department to combat anti-competitive practices that have undermined competition and harmed consumers for decades. As the justice department noted in support of the enactment of the law, the removal of this exemption “will strengthen the Antitrust Division ability to investigate and prosecute anti-competitive behavior.”/3

The importance of this law became clear less than a month after its promulgation. In February 2021the American Hospital Association (AHA) asked the DOJ and FTC to use their new power to investigate anti-competitive pricing by nurse recruitment agencies and the conduct of several large commercial health insurance companies,4 including UnitedHealth – a request the DOJ may have encountered difficulty in acting despite evidence-based accusations. Behavior such as that alleged by the AHA harms patients and healthcare workers and undermines the WE health care system.

For Congress In order to better understand how the Department enforces antitrust laws in this area following the enactment of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, we respectfully request responses to the following questions by August 30, 2022:

1. Since January 13, 2021which shares, if any, have the Antitrust Division taken to enforce antitrust laws against health insurance companies that are no longer exempt from the application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act?

2. In addition to the case highlighted in this letter, the Antitrust Division submitted amicus briefs, opinions of additional authority, business advisory opinions, or other material regarding the legal consequences of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act in private litigation?

3. Given the expanded powers following the promulgation of CHIRA, what measures will the Antitrust Division taken to review existing health care guidelines to determine if improvements or new guidelines are needed?

4. Are there other laws or case law that prevent or frustrate the efforts of DOJ enforce antitrust laws in health insurance markets?

5. Would an increase in resources help Antitrust Division enforce federal antitrust laws in the health insurance industry?

Thank you for your attention to this important subject.

See footnotes here:

* * *

Original text here:

3 Common Life Insurance Myths Tue, 28 Jun 2022 13:21:50 +0000

We all understand the essence of life insurance. It provides financial assistance to beneficiaries in the event of the death of the insured. But what we may not be aware of is its role as financial aid for life-disrupting disability and preventing us from working.

Another misconception is that many equate life insurance policy with Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) which is wrong. “Most people think life insurance policy is LIC. LIC is a business and life insurance policy can be provided by more than 20 insurance companies in India,” says Naval Goel, CEO and founder of

According to financial planners, good life insurance helps the family in the event of the death of the insured as well as in the event of loss of income due to illness or accident.

Here are three common myths about life insurance.

Employer-sponsored life insurance is sufficient: This is because the employer-sponsored life insurance policy is valid only until the time of employment with the employer. So if you decide to quit your job, retire or be laid off, your coverage will end. The benefit provided by the employer does not allow you to have control of your policy. Your employer usually limits the amount you can have and it cannot be customized to your needs. If the employer, who is a policyholder in this case, decides to cancel or reduce the benefit, you could find yourself without coverage or without adequate coverage.

Says Sajja Praveen Chowdary, business manager, term life insurance, “Another consideration is coverage. Although employer-provided group term insurance may be inexpensive or free, it may not be right for you. Often, life insurance coverage provided by employers is limited to one to two times your annual salary. This coverage would be sufficient if you are single and have no dependents. However, this amount would not be enough for a family to meet their basic needs in case they find themselves without any income.

The right thing to do is to purchase an individual term plan for you and your family to support your long term life goals.

Only breadwinners need life insurance: While it’s true that life insurance is essential for the person who provides most of the household income, there is value and an added safety net in having insurance coverage for your spouse as well.

“This is an insurable risk, and housewives should purchase life insurance with the breadwinner. Having life insurance for non-breadwinners can help the family adjust to losses in the event of misfortune. There are now stand-alone term insurance plans available for homemakers that are not tied as top-up coverage to the spouse’s term insurance coverage,” says Chowdary.

Life insurance is primarily a tax saving instrument: Many people view their life insurance policy as a tax-saving tool. You are entitled to a tax deduction under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the amount paid as a premium for your life insurance.

Many policies also come in the form of return of premium, endowment, or unit-linked insurance plans that pay a sum insured or continue to maturity, as the case may be, at maturity if the insureds survive the term of the policy. Thus, they also serve as a corpus for the future financial goals of the insured.

Highest Paying Jobs in Asheville That Don’t Require a College Degree | State / Region Mon, 13 Jun 2022 14:01:32 +0000

Exploring the California Wildfire Insurance Legislative Landscape Thu, 26 May 2022 21:26:00 +0000
By Jan Larson and Jenna Conwisar (May 26, 2022, 5:26 p.m. EDT) — In California, warmer temperatures and longer days mean wildfire season is fast approaching.

This year, Californians are already on edge with unprecedented water restrictions meant to keep Southern California from running out of water before summer ends.[1] Thanks to these alarming drought conditions caused by the worst mega-drought in at least 1,200 years, the 2022 wildfire season could be fraught with exceptional peril for residents.[2]

Insurers have been battling state regulators over how to protect California homeowners and business owners while maintaining insurers’ financial viability.[3]

The result was lower limits and dramatically…

Stay one step ahead

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You need to know what’s going on with customers, competitors, practice areas and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to stay an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data in articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of lawsuits, etc.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, motions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and more!


Insurance premiums for tattoo shops leave businesses facing the prospect of closure Sun, 22 May 2022 22:02:24 +0000

For the past eight years a tattoo studio has occupied 205 Brisbane Street in Ipswich, but that is about to change.

Family business Compass Tattoo will close in six months with nowhere to go.

A recent change in their landlord’s insurance has forced their eviction, creating a chilling ultimatum: pay $30,000 a year – on top of their normal expenses – to keep their prime spot or move out.

“Our landlord came to us and said the only way to renew our lease was to take on a pretty large landlord’s insurance bill,” said studio co-owner Angela Nayler.

“His insurance each year is about $11,000 for the building. This year, if he keeps Compass Tattoo as a tenant, he’s looking at about $41,000.”

The mother-of-three said it was a bill the company simply could not afford.

“He wants to keep us. He’s tried over 20 insurance companies and they all say the same thing: they won’t insure him if there’s a tattoo shop in the building because we’re high rated. risk,” she said.

“There are only a few [insurers] in Australia that will cover us, and they are able to jack up the prices as much as they want.”

Tattoo parlors not covered ‘due to gang affiliation’

Ms Nayler said she had contacted more than a dozen other insurers in a desperate search for an explanation as to why tattoo studios were rated high risk.

She said a Shield Insurance broker told her that many insurers wouldn’t cover tattoo parlors “because of gang affiliation and all those sorts of things.”

In a statement, Shield Insurance said that “insurers typically relay broad comments, such as not falling within their underwriting scope, due to the high risk of the business.”

“Gallagher Insurance has a facility for tattoo artists and as far as I know it is the only option on the market.”

Tattoo parlor owners say the industry’s ties to organized crime are outdated. (ABC News: Laura Lavelle)

Arthur J Gallagher Insurance has been contacted for comment.

A spokesman for the Insurance Council of Australia said capital is harder to come by, so insurers’ risk appetite is lower.

“Each insurer bases the offer of a premium on their claims experience,” a spokesperson said.

“An increase in claims activity in a segment may result in higher premiums for that segment, or the insurer may choose not to offer insurance to that segment at all.”

Tattoo studios are disappearing across the country

Matthew Sullivan of Eternal Mark Tattoo in Gympie said he was made to feel like a criminal, despite never being behind bars or committing a crime.

“I don’t feel like I belong in the category of [an artist] or something like that,” he said.

“I’m basically categorized as a motorcycle outlaw, even though I’m not.”

A bearded man stands in a tattoo parlor full of colorful paints.
Gympie tattoo parlor owner Matthew Sullivan says his rent has doubled. (ABC News: Amy Sheehan)

His rent doubled this year after his landlord suffered a $16,000 insurance price hike because he rented a tattoo artist.

“We went from a $4,000 insurance premium to over $20,000,” he said.

“I have to pass the extra cost on to the customer.”

He said he feared the extra cost on top of his other expenses could put him out of business.

“Something has to change otherwise we’re going to see a lot more small businesses closing.”

Association with “obsolete” crime

Australian Tattooist Guild president Alex Cairns said it was a “common” problem nationwide.

“Almost every tattoo shop owner I’ve spoken to over the past two years has the same problem,” he said.

A man works on a tattoo on a client's lower back.
Australian Tattooist Guild president Alex Cairns says the industry has moved on from its dark past.(ABC News: Laura Lavelle)

He said the industry has moved beyond its dark past with organized crime.

“I think there’s an outdated association with an element of criminality,” he said.

“It’s outdated by a few decades.”

For tattoo artists to be licensed, they must pass strict background checks, including fingerprinting in Queensland and New South Wales.

“You would be hard-pressed to find examples where there were [links to organised crime].”

“It’s unfair, it’s discriminatory”

James Thompson and Samantha Morrison stand in the tattoo parlor.
Samantha Morrison says she had to evict her tenant James Thompson because of the insurance hike. (ABC News: Laura Lavelle)

Red Hill apartment building owner Samantha Morrison made the decision to evict her “loyal” tattoo artist tenant after receiving an updated building insurance bill for an additional $10,000.

“We are losing the best tenant we have ever had,” she said.