Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Insurance

Proposed Legislation Would Protect Consumers, Hold Insurance Companies Accountable

David Mittleman — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:42:55 GMT

Earlier this week, Democrats in the Michigan House of Representatives introduced a package of bills that would strengthen consumer protection and prevent auto insurance companies from engaging in unfair trade practices. The proposed law, which is made up of ten separate bills, represents a significant step toward safeguarding consumers' interests.

Under the current law, insurance companies can consider someone's credit history, education, and occupation when setting insurance rates. The new law would prohibit this practice, as well as prevent auto insurance companies from raising an individual's rate following an accident if he or she was not at fault. In addition, the state insurance commissioner would have to sign off on any potential rate increases.

The new bill package essentially adopts the recommendations put forth by consumer advocates in February of this year. Despite its brutal economic climate, Michigan ranks in the top quarter of all states in terms of total auto insurance premiums.

Until now, auto insurance companies have been able to fix rates based on irrelevant and discriminatory information. Hopefully, that is about to change and consumers will be able to enjoy a fair and reasonable method of determining auto premiums.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Use Social Networking Sites With Caution: You Never Know Who's Looking

David Mittleman — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:26:53 GMT

In a world where it has become increasingly more popular to post every aspect of our lives online through social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter, Natalie Blanchard hardly realized that her seemingly innocent Facebook photos would change her life as much as they did. Blanchard, like the millions of other Facebook users posted photos of herself on a beach vacation, at a birthday party, and posing with Chippendale dancers at a bar. However, Blanchard like a few other Facebook users, has become a poster child for caution during the social media age.

In fact, Blanchard suffers from severe depression and has been on long-term disability from her job at IBM for over a year-and-a-half. Her insurance provider, Manulife, has paid her disability benefits since she left her job after her depression became severe enough to hinder her daily life activities. Thus, when she suddenly stopped receiving the checks in the mail from Manulife, she called the company to see what was wrong. She was shocked when the company informed her that they had cut her benefits off because they had viewed her photos on Facebook and no longer believed that she suffered from depression.

Publicly, Manulife claims that it “would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on website such as Facebook.” However, the company does admit that it checks the profiles for its clients. Blanchard’s situation offers an important lesson in protecting privacy while utilizing social networking sites: while Facebook offers users an opportunity to share a “slice” of their life with friends and the world, it is important to remember that employers, and apparently insurance companies, use seemingly harmless posted information, too. However, it is too late for Blanchard to heed this privacy advice: instead, she has filed a civil suit against Manulife for $275,000 and is scheduled to appear in Quebec Superior Court on December 8.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Drug Makers Raise Prices Despite Promises of Cost Reform

David Mittleman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:39:28 GMT

Drug makers pledged to help cut down healthcare costs by $8 billion a year, but now it doesn’t look like they are making good on that promise. Instead, in the last year alone, the pharmaceutical industry has raised their wholesale prescription drug prices by 9%. Instead of cutting down on costs, that raises the nation’s drug-related healthcare costs by $10 billion, and represents the highest annual rate of inflation on drug prices since 1992.

Originally, drug makers had touted their agreement with the White House and the Senate Finance Agreement chairman to trim $8 billion a year from the nation’s drug costs, or $80 billion over 10 years, by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. However, the recent increase in prices would essentially cancel out the savings for at least the first year of the plan, if not the entire 10 years.

Nevertheless, drug makers argue that there are valid business reasons for raising prices. Specifically, they argue that they are forced to raise their prices in order to invest in future research and development of new drugs, especially as patents expire on previous drugs. While drug makers claim their “reasons” for raising their prices, many Americans who do have drug insurance will be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the leftover cost of overpriced drugs that insurance won’t entirely cover.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Lower Car Insurance Rates One Step Closer to Reality in Michigan

David Mittleman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:00:59 GMT

Most motorists will likely tell you that their car insurance rates are simply too high. With the economy in Michigan the way it currently is, any effort to save consumers' money is worth a serious look. Yesterday, a state election panel approved a petition form for a 2010 ballot proposal that would would cut auto insurance rates by 20 percent.

The action by the panel means that lower insurance rates could be coming to Michigan. Next, backers of the proposal must gather over 300,000 signatures. If the effort is successful, the proposal will appear on the ballot in the 2010 election.

The proposal does more than simply lower rates. According to supporters, it helps ensure that consumers are protected against unfair trade practices and to promote competitive, affordable coverage for everyone.

Insurance companies, on the other hand, insist that they could become insolvent if the proposal were to become law. This claim seems somewhat farfetched, however. In 2008, the top four insurance companies in the country made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, and State Farm made over $5 billion.

Auto insurance reform in Michigan is now in the hands of the voters. If enough concerned citizens sign the ballot proposal petition, you will have the chance to make your voice heard in the crucial 2010 election.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Women are second class citizens in Bart Stupak's America

Devon Glass — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:24:45 GMT

History was made last night as the House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill, and now it's up to the Senate to pass one as well. The bill passed does have a public option and will help control health care expenses in the coming decades. This bill was not passed without significant compromise, but one of the compromises made me really angry.

Representative Bart Stupak, who is from Michigan, decided his vote was contingent on being able to offer an amendment to the health care reform bill to prevent any federal money used in the new health care exchange from paying for abortion services. Nevermind that abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Nevermind that abortion is legal, and has been, for more than 30 years in the United States. Nevermind that access to abortion services is supported by the majority of Americans. To Bart Stupak, all of this is meaningless because he does not support abortion and since he gets to vote on this health care bill and you don't, his opinion matters more than yours. The price for Bart Stupak's support for health care reform is simple, sacrificing women's rights.

I find it interesting that, as a man, Bart Stupak gets to decide what medical services should be afforded to woman in this country. Rep. Stupak will never personally need to have an abortion, so I guess from his perspective it's okay to limit peoples access to abortion services. The effect of his amendment will not outlaw abortion, but it will make it tougher for people who need an abortion to pay for it. Since the new health care exchange won't be permitted to provide coverage for abortion services with federal money, anyone who gets insurance through the new health care exchange will need to pay out of pocket for an abortion or additional insurance to cover abortion services. I don't know about you, but my understanding is that most woman don't plan on having abortions so it's going to be difficult to convince them to pay extra for a service they don't believe they will need in the future.

To add insult to injury, the woman who are purchasing insurance on the new health care exchange are likely receiving assistance to pay for the insurance. This means it's unlikely they can afford to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion services. In effect, this will make abortion services something that only rich women can afford, creating a tiered health care system for women. Is that what we want when we are working to expand health care to cover most, if not all, of Americans?

I can only speculate what goes through Bart Stupak's mind when deciding to expand health care but limit health care options for women. This reminds me of the discussion between Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Jon Kyl about providing maternity care, which I've provided below. The thing is, there are lots of services that I don't use when I have health insurance, but we all pay because we don't know when we may need those services in the future. I may not need dialysis coverage now, but if I go into renal failure in the future I'm going to be glad I have it. The money I spend to pay for health insurance covers everyone who has health insurance and it should not be up to me or Bart Stupak or anyone else what services someone else gets to receive. It should be a decision made by the patient and their doctor. End of story.

Abortion may be something that people feel icky about, but it's a legal medical procedure that more than 1 million women utilize every year. It should not be a political bargaining chip to convince someone to support health care reform. I think we should look at passing an amendment that erectile dysfunction treatment should not be covered by any insurance offered on the new health care exchange. The reasoning is simple, if old men didn't get boners they would not impregnant the women they are having sex with, therefore no abortion needed. However, I don't think you would get much support for such an amendment because it discriminates against men, but I don't see the difference between not providing coverage for abortion and not providing coverage for erectile dysfunction. Maybe Bart Stupak can explain the difference if you call his office and ask him really nice, he can be reached at (202) 225 4735.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jj6pqajvB8

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Devon Glass

AAJ Debunks Myths About Medical Negligence

David Mittleman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:46:56 GMT

President Obama promised a floor debate on health care reform in the House, and now that promise is coming to fruition. The debate is sure to include the classic opponents of healthcare reform, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as other tort reform proponents such as the asbestos, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. However, one of the most problematic arguments used by these groups is that medical malpractice lawsuits are the basis for the rising cost of healthcare and that the answer is not healthcare reform. Instead, they argue that limiting “frivolous lawsuits” is the panacea to our country’s healthcare cost woes.

The American Association for Justice (AAJ), a trial lawyers group based Washington, D.C, recently released a 30-page report (pdf) outlining the pertinent arguments of the debate. Specifically, the five myths the AAJ outlines are:

Myth #1: There are too many frivolous lawsuits, and curbing the number of lawsuits would cut down the cost of healthcare.

The actual number of lawsuits filed per year is questionable. What most people don’t understand is that trial lawyers don’t have near the financial power that an insurance company does. Specifically, insurance companies can spend enormous, and seemingly endless, amounts of money to win a case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, on the other hand, are on very tight budgets and must question the validity of every case that might come their way. Wasting money attempting to prove a case that doesn’t have merit is nonsensical, so plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t scooping up every case possible, contrary to popular belief.

While the number of frivolous lawsuits is questionable, the number of medical negligence cases aren’t: in fact, according to the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 “To Err is Human” report, 98,000 people are killed in hospitals each year from preventable medical errors.

Furthermore, a Hearts Newspaper Group “Dead by Mistake” investigation into medical malpractice found that the number of patients affected was closer to 200,000, when hospital-acquired infections were taken into consideration.

Are all of these individuals affected by medical negligence flocking to file lawsuits? Apparently not: according to a Harvard study, only 1 in 8 people injured by medical negligence filed a malpractice claim.

Other myths included in the AAJ report include:

Myth #2:

Malpractice claims drive up the cost of healthcare

Myth #3:

Doctors are fleeing

Myth #4:

Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums

Myth #5:

Tort reform will lower insurance rates

For additional information on the myths surrounding healthcare reform and the costs of healthcare, see AAJ's "Debunking the Myths".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Hospitalized Uninsured Children More Likely to Die When Compared to Insured Children

David Mittleman — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:35:07 GMT

Researchers at John Hopkins University recently made a horrific discovery: uninsured children who are hospitalized are more likely to die than children with government or private health insurance. In fact, the researchers estimated that approximately 37.8%, or 17,000 child deaths could have been avoided if the more children had health insurance coverage.

The researchers analyzed data from 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. According to the data, when the researchers compared uninsured children with insured children, the uninsured faced a 60% increased risk of dying.

While the study was not meant to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die, the researchers did find a potential culprit for the increase in deaths amongst uninsured children. Specifically, uninsured children were more likely to access health care through the emergency room, which suggests that many uninsured children were in advanced stages of illness prior to seeking medical attention. Furthermore, uninsured children were hospitalized for less time than insured children: on the average, uninsured children were hospitalized for less than a day when they died, as compared to insured children who spent a full day in the hospital prior to death. Currently, an estimated 7 million children are uninsured in the United States.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Insurance Companies Might Have to Play by the Same Rules As Other Industries After All

David Mittleman — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:15:00 GMT

I've been saying for months that we're not in a medical or health care crisis, we're in an INSURANCE CRISIS. It looks like the folks at Congress know what I'm talking about.

Congress seems poised to end a 50-plus year vacation insurance companies have enjoyed from federal anti-trust regulation. Bills are making their way through committees in both the House and Senate that would strip the insurance industry of its exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

This important move by Congress will increase competition and prevent price-fixing, all of which helps the American consumer times these tough financial times. The insurance companies, not surprisingly, are crying wolf over the prospect of no longer being able to gouge Americans with unfair policies and pricing structures.

Senator Harry Reid put it best when he said: "It's time to level the playing field for American healthcare consumers and make the insurance industry play by the same rules that other industries live by."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Cigna Flips Off Mother of Dead Girl Who Was Denied Life-Saving Liver Transplant

David Mittleman — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:21:59 GMT

Cigna Corporation denied Hilda Sarkisyan coverage for her daughter’s liver transplant, which ultimately led to the 17-year-old girl’s death in December 2007. If that wasn’t bad enough, it was even more shocking when Hilda went to the company’s Philadelphia headquarters to complain about the incident.

Ten months after her daughter’s death, Hilda went to the company’s headquarters and walked up to the lobby security desk. She simply stated: “you guys killed my daughter” and demanded an apology. However, instead of apologizing, several Cigna employees began heckling her, including giving her “the finger”. Cigna later apologized for the 2008 incident. Nevertheless, Hilda and her husband filed a wrongful-death complaint against the health insurer, aghast at the company for failing to save their daughter’s life and for their poor behavior in response to the family’s grief.

Sadly, the wrongful-death lawsuit was thrown out by a Los Angeles judge, saying that the suit was barred by a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects employer-paid healthcare plans from having to pay damages above maximum coverage limits. However, the U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the Sarkisyan’s could pursue the damages related to emotional distressed caused by the Philadelphia incident. The ruling is bittersweet for patient advocates and Hilda alike: her 17-year-old daughter died because Cigna refused a life-saving liver transplant and now all she can sue the healthcare insurance giant for is for giving her the finger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnFoCcgigZE

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Why Do Doctors Always Think They Are Entitled To Special Treatment?

David Mittleman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:59:00 GMT

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal on just this topic. The truth is, it's not just my friend and anesthesiologist Dr. Kenneth Elmassian, who takes this viewpoint - the local Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS) and the national American Medical Association (AMA) group that want to place doctors above the law. They have a problem with defensive medicine because of their faulty assumption on its connection to health care costs. They also want to single out doctors and give them blanket immunity that doesn't exist with any other type of private individual.

Frankly, it is my choice and right as a patient to want defensive medicine for me and my family. I don't want doctors cutting corners if the technology is available. We are not in the midst of a medical or legal crisis. WE ARE IN AN INSURANCE CRISIS. WE NEED INSURANCE REFORM.

The Constitution of the United States makes the right to a jury trial in civil matters a protected right by virtue of the 7th Amendment. If a jury can decide the factual disputes in all other negligence cases, and if a jury can decide whether a person commited a crime that can be punishable by loss of libery (incarceration), then a jury can certainly decide fair and adequate damages when a doctor harms a patient, and they and their families are affect for the rest of their lives!

Doctors put their pants/skirts on just like WE do!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman