Pending a legal challenge, San Francisco could be the first American city to provide access to healthcare for all of its residents.

In a lopsided 11-0 vote, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors voted to implement the $200 million-dollar "San Francisco Health Access Plan," which is the brainchild of the city's iconoclastic mayor, Gavin Newsom. (He last made news when he flouted state law and issued marriage licenses to gay couples.)

In a departure from other universal healthcare concepts, San Francisco's plan doesn't provide insurance to the uninsured. Instead, it will provide access to essential medical services to tens of thousands of residents that they previously couldn't afford care.

According to the AP, the ambitious plan will be paid for through individual premiums, taxes, and business contributions. The latter funding source is a sticking point, and businesses, who say they'll have to foot a disproportionate amount of the bill, are likely to file a legal challenge to the initiative. In fact, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the city's private sector has displayed "unmitigated opposition" to the plan.

Proponents say that if people have access to routine care they will be less likely to require later emergency room care, which is prohibitively expensive for most patients.

Medical care would be limited to residents of the city.

Businesses opposed to the plan (most of which make up the 15 percent who currently don't provide covereage for their workers) threaten to either leave the city or simply pass on the costs to their consumers, a move that would raise the cost of living in this already expensive city. (It typically makes the list of top three most expensive cities in America.) Methinks this fact will likely prevent a "gold rush" for the city's cheap(er) medical care.

Will the plan work? Let us know what you think.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:18 AM | Permalink
 

Life insurance isn't a fun topic; we all know this. And I'm not going to try and trick you into believing that life insurance is the coolest thing you've ever spent money on, because, well, it's not. Cars, books and in my case, shoes, are much cooler things to spend money on.

But as it happens, life insurance is a necessary purchase for most of us. So today I'm going to share four tips to maximize your coverage while minimizing your premium dollars...you know, so you have spare change in your pocket for the fun stuff. Like shoes.

See my four tips for life insurance savings after the jump.

Saving tip #1: You better shop around

Life insurance policies aren't one-size-fits-all. And while comparing life insurance quotes may seem like more work than it's worth, it's really a great benefit for consumers like you and me. Competition in the marketplace allows you to take advantage of the best premiums—and the best service.

And now, online quoting services like ours here at InsureMe make it easier for you to compare multiple quotes...taking a matter of minutes at the computer rather than a whole afternoon on the phone.

Saving tip #2: Ask your agent about discounts

Many insurance companies offer discounts to policyholders if they hold additional policies through that insurer (like health or home insurance, for example), as well as for non-smokers. Be sure to ask your agent about discounts up front so you can secure the lowest premium.

Saving tip #3: Make healthy lifestyle choices

I know, I know. Some days you just don't feel like getting on the treadmill. But the truth is that more and more insurers are using Body Mass Index—a measure of fat based on height and weight—to determine rates for health and life insurance. Smokers also pay more for life insurance. So, if you needed an extra push to shed some pounds or kick your smoking habit, a little extra coin in your pocket should provide some serious incentive.

Saving tip #4: Work only with reputable companies

The Internet has made it easier than ever to make sound purchasing decisions. You can use sites like AM Best or the Better Business Bureau (BBB) to learn about a potential insurer's financial strength and customer service rating. You should also call your state's department of insurance (or visit them online) to make sure your agent is licensed to sell life insurance in your state.

On the surface, it might not seem like a company's customer service rating and financial standings would save you money—and up front it might not. But doing business with sub-par agencies and agents can really cost you, both in money and time. Especially if your beneficiaries need access to your life insurance proceeds and can't access them.

So, those are my four must-know tips for getting the best deal on life insurance. Not the most glamorous article you've ever read, I'm sure, but I hope it will come in handy as you shop for life insurance. Of course, you can always start that process now by filling out the "Get a Quote" box at the top of the page, but now I'm just shamelessly plugging InsureMe.com. :)

Have more life insurance questions? Post them under comments or check out the Insurance Resource Center. You can even read timely life insurance information as it pertains to your state—just find your state on the State Information and Quotes page to fill your brain with countless insurance tips.

[Related post]: Is a Broadband Gym Right for You?

Posted by Megan Mahan at 02:59 PM | Permalink
 

According to an article in the Miami Herald, South Florida businesses face "permanent, crippling economic damage" due to the lack of affordable windstorm insurance.

Further, the high cost of coverage has many business considering a move to less volatile environs--a prospect that bodes ill for the state's unemployment rate and economy as a whole. Consumers (who have insurance woes of their own) are also feeling the hurt, as businesses pass on the high cost of windstorm coverage in the form of higher prices.

Unlike homeowners, Florida business owners cannot turn to state-sponsored windstorm insurance.

The real estate market--one of the key pillars of the state's economy--is also reeling from the insurance crisis. Because insurance is so hard to come by, builders aren't able to get mortgages. This means that the state's tax revenue will suffer, as much of Tallahassee's income is tied to taxes on real estate transactions.

So to sum up, Florida faces flighty businesses; high prices for consumer goods; the prospect of a spike in unemployment; economic stagnation; and a hurricane season that is just getting going. (And I heard the organge crop was big dissapointment this year.)

This state just can't get a break.

Meantime, businesses, insurance companies, real estate brokers and bankers don't know a way out of the insurance crisis, and they think the state's political leadership has taken a casual attitude toward finding a solution. ''The insurance department has dropped the ball on this crisis. By the time they finish talking, we could have been hit by a hurricane,'' Carlos Allen, vice president of Pan American Assurance, told the Herald.

He's got a point.

Gov. Jeb Bush created the Property and Casualty Reform Committee last month. Its first report on the state's insurance crisis isn't due until Nov. 15--pretty much the time when the hurricane season packs it in for the winter.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 11:15 AM | Permalink
 

The rising cost of health insurance has made it difficult for many self employed workers to find affordable coverage. But the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) recently launched a new consumer-driven health initiative called "Your Health, Your Choice." The goal of this program is to educate consumers, help them evaluate their own health care needs, aid them in finding the right resources, and encourage them to take an active role in their own health care management, according to a recent press release by the organization.

The new program and its accompanying Web site feature a comprehensive consumer guidebook and lots of useful information for the self-employed—all free of charge. They offer valuable information beneficial to anyone who wants to assess their own health care needs and reduce costs. Some of the information available includes:

• tips for choosing the right health plan


• tips for keeping health care costs down, and


• tips on health and wellness programs

"The key for those who are self-employed is to learn how to become educated health care consumers," said Kristie Darien, executive director of NASE's legislative office. "That means being able to evaluate their own health care needs, seek out appropriate resources, ask the right questions, learn about and investigate available insurance options, and...take an active role in managing their health care environment."

As annual health insurance premiums for the self-employed rose to an average of $10,880 per family and $4,024 per individual last year, this program comes none too soon in the view of self-employed consumers. So check out the new Web site here—then visit InsureMe for free self-employed health insurance quotes!

Posted by Penny Hagerman at 11:18 AM | Permalink
 

If you've ever shopped for a homeowners policy, the chances are good you had to disclose whether you owned a Rottweiler, Pit Bull, Doberman, Chow, or German Shepard. (Sometimes even Dalmatians make the list.)

And if you do own one of the above breeds? Well, you may now be paying more for your policy than your Peekapoo-owning neighbor.

The U.S. Humane Society and the American Kennel Club label this "breed discrimination" and they're lobbying every state legislature in the union in hopes of stopping the practice. Deeds not breeds, they say, should be the determining factor in underwriting. Because what if your docile German Shepard is a saint next to your neighbor's Peekapoo? Should you have to pay a penalty or be denied coverage while the other guy gets a pass?

Insurers are skittish about dogs--and for good reason. Last year, insurers forked over $317 million in dog bite-related claims, according to the Insurance Information Institute (III).

While advocacy groups can sympathize with insurers' wariness, organizations like the Humane Society and the American Kennel Club believe breed-specific rate setting is a misguided and ineffective attempt to remedy the costs of dog aggression. All breeds bite, they say. The best way to reduce dog-bite liability claims is to encourage and reward responsible dog ownership.

"The fact is, dogs bite for many reasons," writes Brian Sodergren for the Humane Society. "They may bite out of fear or to protect their territory or to establish dominance over a person. Dogs may also bite because some owners mistakenly teach their canines that biting is an acceptable form of play. What's more, every year a number of newborn infants die when bitten by dogs who may see them as "prey" or who may harm them unintentionally during unsupervised interactions. Because of the variety of reasons behind dog bites, responsible dog care--including proper socialization, supervision, humane training, sterilization, and safe confinement--is necessary to prevent biting."

Canine advocacy groups have had considerable success in winning over state legislatures with their arguments. Many states have already banned breed-specific rate setting, and others are crafting bans as we speak. Authorities are also putting more emphasis, in the form of both carrots and sticks, on dog owner responsibility. While insurers claim their data show certain breeds to be more costly than others, many legislators are not convinced.

The American Kennel Club thinks dogs can be an asset to insurers, not just a liability. The group says a dog may serve as "a natural alarm system whose bark may deter intruders and prevent potential theft."

The III says you're not liable if Fluffy chomps on an intruder.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
 

As promised, I've found an opposing point of view (actually, I found a few) to the Health Care Choice Act, which was discussed in a previous post.

Here's some background:

The Health Care Choice Act, which is sponsored by two U.S. House Republicans and has been championed by small businesses, would allow health insurance consumers to buy policies from other states. Supporters say increased interstate competition will help lower costs and eventually help to provide coverage for the 45 million Americans who lack insurance.

Presently, each state regulates insurance sold within its borders, and many have added various mandates to what health insurers in their states must cover. (For example, about twenty states mandate that health insurers cover mental illness to the same extent they cover physical illness.)

According to most insurers, as well as supporters of the Health Care Choice Act, these mandates simply drive up the cost of insurance and prevent low-income Americans from being able to afford basic coverage.

As you might expect, though, there is nothing close to unanimity on this point. I've found, in my trolling of the Internet in recent days, plenty of divergent viewpoints on the Health Care Choice Act.

A consistent refrain is that the act will result in watered down coverage, little oversight of insurance companies, and, consequently, not enough consumer protection. In a July 2005 release, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees wrote, "Consumers who purchase health policies in the individual market will be limited to poor quality coverage with the least consumer protections and fewest controls over inappropriate pricing practices." They even evoked the lawless frontier in their opposition to the Health Care Choice Act. "By eliminating the authority of a state to regulate insurers doing business in their states," the AFSCME wrote, "the bill would create a Wild West environment in the individual market where bad actors could engage in fraud and abuse while state regulators would be helpless to stop it."

Other organizations on record opposing the bill include: National Partnership for Women & Families, AFL-CIO, Consumers Union (publishers of Consumer Reports), Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, and the National Mental Health Association.

In a recent letter to congress, signed by the above organizations and others, critics challenged the notion that the Health Care Choice Act would reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

Citing a Congressional Budget Office report, opponents of the bill said that it would actually reduce the number of insured Americans, as many employers would drop coverage for their workers. "The CBO also found," the letter reads, "that Medicaid spending would increase by $1 billion between 2007 and 2015."

The story gets more complicated--as it always does.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:05 AM | Permalink
 

Firefighters in southern California caught a break yesterday as a quarter inch of rain fell on flames that have scorched 85,000 acres and claimed as many as 60 homes.

The rain, however, raised fears of flash flooding. (The newly charred mountain hillsides provide ideal circumstances for flooding.)

If it's not one thing ...

Fire and flooding are perils that should be on every homeowner's radar screen. It's also important to remember that while your homeowners insurance covers for fire damage, it does not cover for flooding. (Visit the National Flood Insurance Program for information on flood protection.)

Also, as Megan pointed out in an earlier post, when it comes to fire protection, make sure your home is insured for the replacement cost rather than the actual cash value. (There are no deductions for depreciation in replacement cost policies.)

I can only hope that the residents of those 60 homes were able to get their important belongings and records out before their homes were consumed by the fire.

That reminds me--there is an excellent (and free) home inventorying program available for downloading at the Insurance Information Institute's Web site. Knowing exactly what you own will speed the claims process should your water or fire (or anything else) damage your home and possessions.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 04:09 PM | Permalink
 

Things aren't looking good in Idaho, according to a recent report by the state's department of insurance (DOI).

During the first six months of 2006, the Idaho DOI handled almost 500 written consumer complaints related to insurance companies, and assisted policyholders in recovering more than $767,000 in insurance premiums, claim payments and other fees owed to them. In 2005, the DOI handled 1,045 written complaints and assisted in recovering over $3.3 million.

Admittedly, there's no full-proof way to protect everyone from unruly insurance companies or the claim complaints and squabbles that sometimes arise. But the report does, in my mind, reinforce the importance of dealing with reputable insurance companies and the agents who represent them.

In addition to shopping for the lowest insurance premium, you should also do some homework on any company or agent you're looking to do business with. Consumer sites like AM Best and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) can give you information about a company's financial strength, past complaints and customer service ratings. Best of all, it's quick, easy and costs you nothing.

When it comes to finding a good agent, it's always a good idea to contact your state DOI to verify that the agent is licensed to sell insurance in your state. The DOI may also have information regarding any past policyholder complaints concerning your agent—complaints that may point you in the direction of another agent.

The latter is something I wish I would have done the last time I shopped for auto insurance. While the insurance company rated well in financial solidity and customer service, the agent clearly had a reputation for being less than stellar. To make a long story short, I ended up unknowingly driving without car insurance for more than two weeks, the agent was terminated and I was refunded some money. Although I was assigned a new agent, I still have problems with my policy from time to time, the residual effect of dealing with a less-than-qualified agent.

In sum, cheap insurance is something we all strive to find. But trust me, poor service can end up costing you more in the end. For more information on finding the right insurance, be sure to visit the InsureMe Insurance Resource Center.

[Source]: Insurance Journal

Posted by Megan Mahan at 03:47 PM | Permalink
 

Can you waterproof your basement? According to Basement Systems, yes you can.

Basement Systems has developed multiple waterproofing products, ranging from a patented piping system called WaterGuard that helps filter water and soil away from your flooring, to a protective floor matting system called ThermalDry to keep your floors from becoming vulnerable to dampness and mold. Basement Systems also offers a state-of-the-art sump pump called the Triple-Safe which can pump up to 6,200 gallons of water per hour.

I spent a fair amount of time on the Basement Systems website and it all looks pretty incredible. All of the waterproofing products aptly compliment one another to keep your basement as dry as possible during a flood and minimize damage to floors and walls. And while the site makes no mention of lower home insurance costs, it seems like a no-brainer way to save.

So if you do decide to waterproof your basement with products like this, be sure to tell your agent about the extra measures you've taken to protect your home from damage. It will likely warrant lower insurance premiums and significantly decrease the likelihood that you'll have to file a claim down the line—a good thing for you and your insurance company.

[Related posts]:
Cutting Down on Post-Flood Damage
Salvaging Storm-Damaged Belongings

Posted by Megan Mahan at 02:10 PM | Permalink
 

California just took another step toward eliminating zip code-based auto insurance premiums.

Barring legal challenge from insurance companies, the rate-setting change will take effect in 30 days.

According to the LA Times, the state Office of Administrative Law gave the green light to a nearly 20-year push to cut zip codes from insurers' rate setting formulas. State insurance commissioner John Garamendi has led the effort to implement the change.

Advocates of eliminating zip codes have long maintained that location-based insurance rates are discriminatory toward minority and low-income Americans. Further, supporters say, zip codes have little to do with claims risk.

"This is very good news for good drivers wherever they may be in California, rural, suburban or urban," Garamendi told the Times.

Auto insurers aren't so sure, saying the regulation will likely cost consumers in the end, particularly those who live in rural areas and spend more time on the road.

The change is an outgrowth of Proposition 103, which calls for driving record and number of miles driven to be the most important criteria in setting insurance rates.

It will be interesting to see what happens to auto insurance premiums in California if the rule takes effect. The state's fourth largest insurer, the Automobile Club of Southern California, has already voluntarily implemented the change, and they say eliminating zip codes from the mix will trim $133 million from the bills of the club's 1 million policy holders.

Insurers, however, often say that freedom in calculating claims risk is integral to keeping premiums low. Mandates that curtail that freedom, while often lucrative for politicians, often just result in higher rates for consumers, they say.

On the other hand, if the Automobile Club of Southern California is able to stay in the black and provide reasonable rates for consumers, the heal-dragging of the other carriers in the state will start to look disingenuous.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:16 AM | Permalink
 

If you find yourself wanting to beat someone up every time you pull into a gas station and see that gas prices have risen yet again, you're not alone. Even some of our nation's safest drivers are going ballistic at the pumps, according to one report late last week by the Insurance Journal.

It's no secret that safe driving leads to less risk for insurers—and lower auto insurance prices for consumers. So, in an effort to reward Milwaukee motorists for being ranked the safest mid-sized city behind the wheel, Allstate decided to give away a tanker truckload of gasoline late last week for such display of character.

The madness that ensued painted a perfect picture of driver frustrations being played out at gas pumps nationwide.

Although many motorists waited patiently in line for hours to get their share of what is quickly becoming liquid gold, others weren't so patient. Fights broke out over who was first, cars crashed into one another as friends let friends cut in line, and four people actually ended up in jail for their misdeeds.

The excitement lasted only a couple of hours, but local police weren't surprised at the results.

"Any time you offer free gas when it is $3 a gallon, it is not surprising people would get excited," said spokewoman Anne E. Schwartz.

In the end, the insurer gave more than 700 motorists free tanks of gas—quite the reward for those who behaved themselves.

Although I don't agree with some of this extreme behavior, I certainly understand the angst behind some drivers' actions. And I expect we'll be seeing more and more public displays of anger as gas prices continue to climb, causing further strain on drivers' already empty wallets.

All that said, the irony behind this story just can't escape the eye. :)

[Read it in its entirety here.]

Posted by Penny Hagerman at 09:45 AM | Permalink
 

It's been a busy morning here at InsureMe, as we are about embark upon our quarterly, company-wide meeting. And with little news going on in the insurance world this morning, I present to you something that may come in handy for a weekend trip: The self-pitching tent.

Quecha is behind this great camping invention; upon throwing it in the air, the tent fully deploys before it reaches the ground. Amazing. And it can be yours for a mere $83.

Have a good weekend, everyone. See you on Monday.

[Hat tip]: TechEBlog

Posted by Megan Mahan at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

The San Francisco Chronicle published an interesting op-ed yesterday about how to provide health insurance to the 45 million or so Americans who currently lack it.

The author of the piece, policy wonk Devon Herrick, says there is a third option that health care reform partisans have overlooked. Instead of promoting an employer-based scheme or a socialized system like Canada's--two opposing and commonly held positions in the health care debate--Herrick proscribes increased doses of competition to cure the ailing system.

He advocates increasing competition by allowing health insurance consumers to purchase policies from other states.

Herrick:

Under current law, each state has the right to regulate health plans sold within their borders, which means 50 different states have 50 different sets of regulations. Because each state insurance market is protected from interstate competition, legislators can and do mandate insurers to cover services that drive up premiums. Proponents often claim a given mandate costs very little -- but they add up. Some estimates suggest these mandates have priced as many as one-quarter of the uninsured out of the market.

Herrick says many people lack insurance not because they can't afford it, but because they live in a state where there are few attractive policy options luring them to buy.

Some bigger states, like Herrick's California, offer scores of health insurance products at reasonable rates. Residents in many smaller states, however, are forced to choose among a tiny pool of expensive plans.

As it happens, he isn't the only one promoting such a scheme. Two U.S. congressmen hope to enact The Health Care Choice Act, which would enable insurance shoppers to cherry pick policies from any carrier in any state.

"The Health Care Choice Act would allow consumers to shop for individual insurance on the Internet, over the telephone or through a local agent," Herrick writes. "Residents of any state would be free to choose among policies from any insurer that offers them ... Thus, if consumers do not want expensive "Cadillac" health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in states that do not mandate such benefits. Consumers would be more likely to find a policy that fits their budget -- giving more people access to affordable insurance."

It's an insightful article. The solution, just add competition, is elegant in its simplicity. And, in general, greater competition brings lower prices. But I'm fairly certain there are some snags--because things can't be that simple, can they?

I'll be on the lookout for an opposing view point. Stay tuned.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
 

Earlier this week, lawmakers in North Carolina concluded that all passengers need to buckle up—even in the back seat.

According to an AP story, supporters of the bill have cited "immeasurable cost" to society when unbuckled back seat riders are seriously injured. Unbuckled passengers, they said, could fly forward and injure front seat occupants during an accident, thus increasing medical costs and auto insurance premiums.

Opponents of the bill said that choice was becoming a "dwindled asset" for North Carolina adults.

"We are faced with a bill that says government can make the decisions for you," said Senate Minority Leader, Phil Berger. "We continue to see an erosion of our personal freedoms."

The bill, which will be sent to the governor for his signature, makes being unbuckled in the back seat a secondary violation, which means that law enforcement can't stop a vehicle solely for a seat belt violation. If the driver is pulled over for another reason, back seat passengers could face a $10 fine.

While I don't exactly know the extent to which North Carolina residents are experiencing a loss of choice, I do advocate the back seat buckle. Increased car insurance rates aside, for the sake of safety, it seems like a no-brainer if you do in fact like your brain.

Check out the AP story courtesy of the Insurance Journal and let me know what you think.

Posted by Megan Mahan at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Many residents of the Gulf Coast who were denied coverage for flood-related damage last year will no doubt be watching very closely the results a newly opened federal court case.

According to the AP, the "groundbreaking" case could decide whether hundreds of homeowners will receive payouts for losses incurred last year from storms Katrina and Rita.

At the heart of this trial is the question of whether some hurricane-related damage was caused by wind or post-storm surge flooding, as well as whether insurers misled consumers into not buying sufficient coverage.

(Homeowner's policies often cover for wind damage but do not cover for damage from flooding.)

Plaintiffs in the case argue that insurance agents encouraged them not to buy flood insurance--that they were assured their homeowner's would cover for flood destruction. They argue that agents have a disincentive to inform homeowners about flood insurance because they typically don't make a big commission on such policies.

They also claim that insurance companies erroneously labeled wind damage as flood damage in their claims investigations, allowing them to deny coverage to many of last year's Katrina and Rita victims.

The potential fallout, if the plaintiffs have their way, is that insurers will be forced to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars for previously denied claims.

We'll keep you posted.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

I found an interesting follow up to Penny's post about summer pool safety today, by way of the Insurance Journal.

Pennsylvanians who thought buying an inflatable kiddie pool would be an easy way let kids swim at home are thinking again. Turns out an enforcement code prohibits the use of most inflatable pools—unless parents opt to put a four-foot fence around it.

According to IJ, under Pennsylvania's Uniform Construction Code, pools more than 24 inches deep must be accompanied by a fence or screened enclosure. The enclosure must also be equipped with self-closing and self-latching gates. Such enclosures could add hundreds of dollars to a twenty-five dollar pool.

"A baby pool, whether it's a foot deep or three feet, can be even more dangerous than a pool with sturdy side walls that are four feet high,'' said officer Sandy Nicolo. "The fact is that children can find a way to get into anything.''

I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the potential for young children to drown in one of these pools, but I also think we should place some responsibility on the parents to keep an eye kids while they're out splashing around. One thing is certain—these rules and regulations have come a long way since I was a kid.

Which gives me a great idea: scrap the pools and bring back the Slip 'N Slide. That long, yellow, sprinkler-clad tarp made for endless backyard fun. While you do run the risk of sliding your belly over a rock or other garden surprise, a bruised rib is nothing to complain about, especially when compared to other summer water risks.

Check out the full IJ story here.

Posted by Megan Mahan at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Zip codes are a large (huge, actually) element in an insurance company's underwriting scheme. If you've ever filled out an online quote form, it's often the first thing you enter. For whatever reason, insurers have decided that knowing where you live is a crucial factor in determining your claims risk--more crucial, perhaps, than your driving record and driving frequency.

But if California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi has his way, auto insurers will no longer be able to add this ingredient to their rate-setting formulas.

Garamendi has fought the practice on the basis of discrimination, saying zip code-based rate setting has little to do with insurance risk and more to do with insurers' preferences of whom they wish to cover.

"How safely you drive is far more important than the ZIP code in which you live," Garamendi told the Associated Press Monday.

Not surprisingly, the major auto insurers are furious over the imminent rule change, which they spent $2 million trying to defeat. (They've threatened to spend more in the courtroom if the rule takes effect.)

If the rule passes the review process--we should now in a week or so if it does--insurers will be forced to comply within two years.

According to the AP, one insurer opted to take a less combative position, cutting their zip code rating system before the rule does or does not take effect. Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall and trying to carve out a competitive advantage by changing early, the Automobile Club of Southern California, the fourth largest carrier in the state, announced that its million or so customers will save about $133 million annually with new, safety-based rates.

I'll be interesting to see if the auto club's "good guy' approach will pay off. They're certainly getting some good publicity for their obliging position and doubtless generating some good consumer karma.

[Source]: San Jose Mercury News

Posted by Jeb Foster at 04:32 PM | Permalink
 

Last week's post on sun-related eye damage got me thinking about another summer hazard--one that is much more terrifying than UV radiation.

The hazard? I'll give you a hint. It is miles in length, registers up to 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and can pack 100 million volts.

The National Weather Service calls lighting "a random, chaotic and dangerous fact of nature," and I would have to agree. Last week, on the Fourth of July, my girlfriend and I found ourselves in the harrowing position of riding our bicycles amid a viscous Colorado lighting storm. (I am compelled to mention Colorado because I've just learned that it ranks number two in the country for fatal lighting strikes. Hapless Florida takes the first position.)

Even though lightning isn't a predator in the ecological sense, it has the unique ability to make one feel like the lowest link on the food chain. It is a metrological powerhouse, and is second only to flooding in terms of annual death toll.

If you're not sufficiently scared of lighting yet, here are some more sobering facts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

• Lighting kills roughly 100 Americans each year (more than hurricanes and tornados combined)


• Lighting injures--often to a debilitating degree--1,000 Americans each year


• Lightning touches down 25 million times throughout the course of a year


• Lighting can strike as far 5-10 miles from the storm


• Lighting activity is highest in the summer months, peaking in July


• Lightning inflicts about $5 billion in economic havoc each year

[Lightning links]:
National Weather Service
National Lightning Safety Institute

Posted by Jeb Foster at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Well done, West Virginia.

The Register-Herald out of Buckley, W.Va.is reporting the partnership of State Farm and WVU Extension to help education women on insurance issues.

WVU Extension is a state organization aimed at educating and empowering the community about social, economic, environmental and technical issues. Terrill Smith, a WVU Extension agent, highlights the importance of insurance education for women:

Every woman who has to make insurance decisions for themselves and their families has wondered if the coverage she has on her car or home was enough. They wonder if they have enough life insurance coverage or if they need to invest in disability insurance. Many women have asked me questions about retirement coverage, homeowners' insurance and a variety of insurance issues.

Studies have also suggested that women seem to be falling through the cracks of America's healthcare system. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study, over 17 million women over the age of 18 are without health insurance and one in ten working women are currently without health insurance. On average, men are 51 percent more likely to be covered under an employer's health plan, versus women at 38 percent.

At the risk of sounding preachy, this stuff is a big deal, which is why I commend State Farm and WVU, not only for recognizing the unique insurance needs of women, but for doing something about it. Tonight, the duo will offer a seminar regarding insurance issues. Those attending the seminar won't be pressured to purchase a policy of any kind, says Smith.

"People will not be asked to buy any insurance from State Farm or anyone else. This is just a wonderful opportunity for women to empower themselves by ask questions and getting information about insurance issues."

Sessions will be held from 1PM until 4PM and from 5PM until 8PM at the WVU Extension office and childcare will be provided.

Good stuff, West Virginia.

So...what's your community doing for you?

[Related article]:
Women and Health Insurance: Falling Through the Cracks? [InsureMe Insurance Resource Center]

Posted by Megan Mahan at 03:53 PM | Permalink
 

It appears consumers are now flocking to the Internet in droves—and abandoning their phones—when it comes time to buy auto insurance.

Close to three-quarters of online shoppers (72 percent) report they now use the Web to find auto insurance, a 5 percent increase over last year's findings; whereas those who pick up their phones to get insurance quotes decreased from 55 percent to 49 percent over the past year.

Why? According to an article in Insurance Networking News, a recent study by Keynote Systems Inc., an Internet business performance firm, largely attributes this shift in buying behavior to two things: price and Web site functionality.

Indeed, price seems to be the single most influential factor in the decision to purchase auto insurance, as we've seen here at InsureMe. After all, who wants to pay more than they have to for the coverage they need? This most recent study supports that premise, citing the fact that "...more than three-quarters (77 percent) of consumers [said] that price is 'extremely important' in their [purchasing] decision."

And with the popularity of the Web these days, the importance of the online experience is also "gaining in importance," with almost two-thirds of those surveyed saying that Web site features and ease of use are "extremely or very important" in their selection of an auto insurance policy.

Insurers seem to be listening and making necessary changes when it comes to these kinds of authoritative findings. In fact, Keynote reports that during the past year, more than 8 out of 10 insurers (81 percent) have made significant changes to improve their Web sites and overall functionality.

It appears that shopping for insurance online is "where it's at." Check out the article over at Insurance Networking News, and see if you don't agree.

Posted by Penny Hagerman at 03:30 PM | Permalink
 

Did you know that it's UV Safety Month?

The eye docs with the American Academy of Ophthalmology have made July--the month of fun in sun--the time when they remind the world that the sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays can do considerable damage to our eyes.

The academy says the summer sun packs three times the UV punch as the winter sun, and lack of protection today can lead to cataracts and age-related macular degeneration down the road.

Although it probably comes as no surprise, your best defense against sun-related eye damage is a good pair of sunglasses. What might be surprising, however, is that when it comes to eyewear, expensive doesn't always mean protective. So before you drop a lot of cash on those hip shades, make sure they block 99 to 100 percent of UV-A and UV-B rays.

The doctors' group also advises people to wear wide-brimmed hats when soaking up the sun this summer. And when the clouds roll in, keep your defenses up: UV rays can easily sneak through cloud cover and do damage to your eyes, particularly in the summer months.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 02:47 PM | Permalink
 

Well, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that, on average, 50 percent of homeowners in Eastern and Central Texas have taken steps to prepare their property to recover from a major hurricane. Thus, progress has been made. The bad news is that more action needs to be taken.

A new Hurricane Readiness Index reported that 65 percent of Southern Coastal Texas residents know that their home insurance policies don't cover floods and yet only 32 percent said they have flood insurance. In Eastern Coastal Texas, 82 percent of homeowners know that their policies don't cover flood damage and only 42 percent have flood insurance. Yikes.

Nonetheless, Jeanne Salvatore of the Insurance Information Institute offers this silver lining:

It's not too late to get ready, but it's close. There is a 30-day waiting period for federal flood insurance to take effect. So homeowners need to call their agents now to make sure their coverage is up to date. There are also things people can do that don't cost a thing—it's just a matter of getting it done now, while there's still time.

Of course, finding affordable coverage, as we've said, can be a challenge for those on the coast. If you currently have home insurance but are without flood insurance, give your insurance agent a call and inquire about a flood insurance policy. You can also visit the National Flood Insurance Program online for more resources and information about buying a policy.

If you are without homeowners insurance, you can use InsureMe.com to find agents who are selling policies in your area and compare quotes. According to our in-house statistician, the fabulous Peter D., Texans who use our shopping service have been easily matched with home insurance agents, especially when compared to other high-risk areas, such as coastal Florida.

We also have a plethora of information and tips for finding coverage, storm preparation and recovery here at the Insurance blog, all of which you can find by looking through our "home insurance news" category. As always, don't hesitate to leave questions or thoughts for us—we're here not only to serve, but also to protect. :)

[Source]: Insurance Journal

Posted by Megan Mahan at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Could casino funds help cover Mississippi's skyrocketing home insurance costs?

Lawmakers are proposing that the state take part of their gambling revenue to hold down home insurance costs in the area. As we've reported before, property insurance isn't cheap or easy to come by in the Gulf coast and Mississippi brings, what seems to be, an innovative solution to the table.

Check out the complete story via the Insurance Journal...and please forgive me for today's short post. :)

[Related posts]:
Home Insurance Rates Skyrocket in Mississippi
Another Chance for Grants in Mississippi

Posted by Megan Mahan at 04:22 PM | Permalink
 

Most smokers probably know they pay more than the rest of us for car, home and life insurance because of their nicotine habit. Of course, knowing that doesn't make cigarettes any less addictive, and, besides, economic penalties have never been a strong deterrent to lighting up.

Enter Nic Vax, the smoking vaccine.

According to a recent story in the New York Times, Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, the maker of Nic Vax, is leading the way toward a "cure" for cigarette addiction. The vaccine is still in the trial stage, so FDA approval and commercial distribution will likely be a few years, provided the trails are successful.

Although it sounds like science fiction, researchers are in the process of developing anti-nicotine antibodies that prevent nicotine from crossing the blood barrier, eliminating the pleasure of the puff and, thus, curbing its addictive, relapse-inducing nature. Denied the positive reinforcement of that delightful, post-dinner buzz, the user is left with nothing but an expensive package of carcinogens.

A smoking vaccine, if it ever hits the shelves, would likely have a huge effect on the insurance industry. Think about it: all of a sudden there would be fewer people taxing the medical system with smoking-related ailments. Houses that would've burned down because of an errant ash will remain standing.

Along with hurricane-proof homes, I imagine a smoking vaccine is an insurer's dream.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 03:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, recently joined the debate over credit-based auto insurance pricing.

The non-profit organization says the use of credit scores in determining how much people pay for car insurance is both "unfair" and "unnecessary."

Their findings were published under a report (lengthily) titled "Score Wars: Consumers Caught in the Crossfire and The Case for Banning the Use of Credit Information in Insurance."

Although insurance carriers each have unique methods for setting premiums, many have recently added credit scores into the mix. The result is that drivers who have less than stellar credit can potentially pay hundreds more on car insurance--even if they have a spotless driving record.

Despite widespread consumer opposition to such practices, as well as many concerned state legislatures, insurers are fiercely protective over their ability to use credit as an ingredient in their premium-setting formulas. With the help of lobbyists, insurers have battled back threats to their credit-based underwriting in Colorado, Delaware and Minnesota, and they're likely girding for a battle in New Jersey, whose legislature has begun to scrutinize the practice.

Never shy about crunching numbers, the Consumers Union hired an actuary and studied how credit reports effect car insurance premiums. I suspect (and hope) their report will raise some powerful eyebrows. As it happens, the credit information that insurers use has a reputation for being neither current nor accurate.

Worse still, "using credit information in insurance decisions leads to a discriminatory impact which makes insurance more expensive for low-income consumers and for members of some minority groups who are otherwise good insurance risks."

Nonetheless, most states continue to countenance this type of scoring, and insurance companies insist the reports allow them to accurately gauge risk.

But the Consumer Union questions the utility of credit reports, adding, "the practice is unnecessary because insurers have many other rating and underwriting factors at their disposal to properly rate a policy."

[Related post]: GEICO Under Fire
[Source]: Insurance Networking News

Posted by Jeb Foster at 03:11 PM | Permalink
 

Good news for some home and business owners in New Hampshire who were hit by May flood waters.

The Insurance Journal is reporting that the federal government has approved about $14 million in grants and loans; IJ reports that over 4,600 applications for assistance have been filed with FEMA since President Bush signed off on a disaster declaration for six counties in New Hampshire.

Qualified homeowners are set to receive more than $6.7 million and the