10 tips for health insurance open enrollment

Wedged in between Halloween and Thanksgiving is health insurance open enrollment season for many employees. That means it's time to review health benefits and pick what plan to enroll in for next year.

This year, things are a little different in light of the health reform bill signed into law in March. So we consulted Optima Health and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield for these health insurance open enrollment tips.

Expect premiums to go up. Optima Health estimates a 1 to 4 percent increase to the base rates of large group plans and a 2 to 3 percent hike for small group and individual plans. This reflects the added medical expenses of providing coverage of dependents up to age 26, the elimination of member cost sharing on preventive services and other new mandates. At Anthem, premiums increases on average are in the mid-single- to low double-digit range, said Scott Golden, an Anthem spokesman.

Keep Your Kids Insured

Adult dependents can stay on their parents' group or individual health-insurance plans until their 26th birthday under the new federal health-care overhaul provision that took effect last month.

The child doesn't have to be in college or live with parents to qualify. He or she can be married, although a child's spouse can't be put on a parent's plan.

Many parents of adult and college-age children may be wondering if this is the way to go or whether adult kids should stick with other options, such as an individual health-insurance policy, public health programs for low-income adults or student health plans.

Currently, about 30% of adults age 19 to 29 are uninsured, a problem the law was meant to help address. Some states, including New Jersey and New Mexico, already had similar laws. But age limits and requirements varied.

Most Employers Included
Under the new law, most big employers will make adult-child health-insurance coverage available for workers starting in the open-enrollment period this fall for the plan year beginning in January 2011, though some may permit enrollment sooner.

In states where some adult children can stay on parents' plans beyond age 26, employers must abide by state laws, says Dean Hatfield, senior vice president and corporate health leader at Sibson Consulting.

About 75% of employers surveyed by human-resources consultant HighRoads said employers will include information about this and other health-care reform provisions in their materials during open enrollment. Parents have to be provided with a written notice by the first day of the plan year.

The new law applies to all health-insurance plans created after March 2010. If the plan existed before March, an employer can opt to exclude young adults if they have access to an employer-sponsored plan of their own, Mr. Hatfield says. (The rule remains in effect until 2014, when all adult kids will be able to get on a parent's plan.)

Parents also can put adult children on their Cobra plan, which allows terminated workers to continue under their former employer's group health-insurance plan. And adult children who have passed a state's age limit for Cobra coverage under a parent's plan in the last 60 days may be able to stay or get back on the plan, says Phil Lebherz, executive director of the Foundation for Health Care Coverage.

Limited Added Cost
From an insured parent's standpoint, it's hard to beat the cost savings of keeping an adult child on a parent's employer-provided health plan, some experts say.

Covered employees pay an average of 30% of the premium for family coverage under group health insurance and employers pay the rest, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Employees who pay part of the premium often have only two options -- individual and family -- so an additional dependent typically doesn't cost much more.

If there's a gap before you can sign up an adult child for coverage, look for a short-term insurance plan or other health plan, including public plans for low-income adults and families. One resource: the Foundation for Health Care Coverage, coverageforall.org or 1-800-234-1317. A Spanish-language edition is at espanol.coverageforall.org.

Check for exclusions, co-pays and deductibles if you opt for an individual plan. Also, check whether an employer-provided or individual plan covers your child in another state.

The Conservatives' child benefit plans sent precisely the wrong signal

As they staggered from the train wreck that was the child benefit fiasco last week, Tory spokesmen were handed a new message to enunciate. Stumbling glassy-eyed around the receptions in Birmingham, they recited pretty much word-for-word the new official defence: this measure was admittedly not much of a step towards dismantling the deficit (in the weird times in which we live, a saving of a billion pounds is relative peanuts) but it was intended as a “signal” that the well-off were going to have to bear their share of the burden.

Well, the signal it was supposed to send got blown away in about 20 minutes. In the blizzard of condemnation which made clear that this testament to “fairness” was quite grotesquely unfair to traditional families with a single earner, and to couples who had made the mistake of actually marrying (cohabiting parents will be unaffected, since there is no way of proving that they are connected to one another), an even more unfortunate signal escaped unnoticed.

The Conservatives have been making a real effort over the past year to take back the word “fair” from the Left. Labour has always used the word as synonymous with “equal”: if wealth or achievement was not evenly distributed, then that fact in itself meant that we lived in an unfair society and that this injustice needed to be rectified by government intervention. Many of the speeches at the Conservative Party conference this year (including David Cameron’s) made the case quite explicitly that the proper meaning of the word “fair” involved just rewards for effort and virtuous behaviour, rather than everybody ending up with roughly the same outcome, however much or little they had contributed.

This is, as I am getting tired of saying, what most people believe: that getting something for nothing, while other people are working hard for what they have, is not fair at all. Of course, there must be compassion and protection for those who are truly the victims of disadvantage. But generally speaking, a fair society is one in which you get out of life pretty much what you put in. This is perhaps the single most important argument for the Tories to win if they are to have a hope of changing the country in the way that they must.

But what exactly was the concept of fairness that was being invoked in the farrago over middle-class child benefit? That the affluent (on £44,000 a year – cue hollow laughter from the south-east of England) must expect to lose their benefit payments just as the poor will lose theirs: that if the welfare-dependent classes are to have fewer state handouts, then the prosperous will have to take their share of the cuts, too – because “we are all in this together”.

Health Reform to Cover Most Young Adults by 2014

More than 12 million of the nation's 15 million uninsured young adults ages 19 to 29 may be able to get health insurance in 2014 as a result of the healthcare reform law, according to a report released Friday by the Commonwealth Fund.

"By providing multiple insurance options for young adults at key life transition points, including graduation from high school and college, the law will significantly reduce both the short- and long-term gaps in health insurance that have historically plagued this age group at all income levels," wrote Sara Collins and Jennifer Nicholson, both of the Commonwealth Fund.

The number of uninsured young adults rose from 13.7 million in 2008 to 14.8 million in 2009. In addition, 5 million insured 20-somethings have very high out-of-pocket costs, leaving them effectively underinsured, the authors noted.

Children-Only Health Insurance Going Away

DENVER -- Thousands of Colorado children will soon have fewer options for health insurance. And parents who may not be able to afford it for themselves, but want it for their children won't have that option.

Ironically the change is as a result of the health care reform act.

7NEWS learned several large insurance companies are no longer offering child-only health policies.

Child-only policies are typically obtained by families because sometimes it's cheaper than a family health plan through an employer. But most often parents who cannot afford health insurance for themselves purchase a child-only policy to make sure their kids are insured even if they are not.

According to Dr. Larry Wolk, with Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics, child-only policies are for parents who may make too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to afford health insurance.

Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics has three clinics in the metro area -- Thornton, Denver and Aurora.

"We see kids whether they have insurance or not," said Wolk.

On Thursday Brandee Lucero took her 4-month-old daughter, Antoinette Daniels, to Rocky Mountain Youth Clinic in Thornton for her check-up.

"I got blessed," said Lucero. "(Antoinette) is very healthy."

Lucero said she is double blessed because her daughter qualifies for Medicaid.

"It is very relieving knowing she is getting it because I think of people that cannot get on it and they don't have anything," said Lucero.

Luckily, even people without insurance have safety-net clinics and hospitals across the metro area -- Rocky Mountain Youth Clinics is one of them.

But Lucero worries that once she gets a job she may not have health insurance for Antoinette because she may make too much money to qualify for a public program such as Medicaid or CHP Plus and the company she works for may not offer insurance or a plan she can afford.

In the past, families in such predicaments used to be able to purchase child-only policies. However, because of the Affordable Care Act those options are disappearing in Colorado.

The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies which offer child-only policies to take all kids, even those with preexisting conditions.

Student Insurance a Must-Have for University

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM--(Marketwire - Sept. 17, 2010) - Of all the items students may find helpful in their study careers, a wi-fi enabled laptop must be among the most versatile. Compact and easy to carry, laptops are great multifunctional devices for students on the go. Most universities contain numerous secure wi-fi hotspots that allow students to connect to the Internet. With a laptop, students can access up to the minute research and stay in contact with their friends and family through email, online chat and social networking services.

Staying connected is an important aspect of student life. From standard mobile phones to smartphones and iPods, mobile devices can help students maintain the all important balance between work and play.

Whether a student moves into residential halls or commutes to university every day, a bicycle can be a convenient and more affordable mode of transport. In addition, a bicycle is a green and efficient way to get around, which is an important factor in light of current environmental concerns and the need to reduce carbon emissions.

Laptops, mobile devices and bicycles are but a few of a student's possessions that can be costly to repair or replace, making a student insurance policy essential. A policy of this nature, such as Endsleigh student insurance, will provide cover for these and other possessions in the event of theft or accidental damage.

Choosing Insurance for the College Life (Grades Not Included)

Many risks that college students face — from property and identity theft to liability cases — can be reduced through proper insurance. The problem is that many parents are as uninterested in talking about these things as their college-age children.

Yet the number of insurable risks faced by college students have gone up tremendously in the decades since their parents lugged stereos and crates of vinyl records into dormitory rooms. The reality is the theft of an iPod should be the least of most parents’ worries, because there are far graver risks. And that is why the start of college is a good time to review all the potential liabilities.

“Most parents shy away from talking about these difficult things because they touch on our deepest fears,” said Christie Alderman, vice president at Chubb & Son, an insurance firm in New Jersey. But, she noted, not talking about a risk does not make it go away.

I have written about the physical safety risks faced by children away at college. This week, I want to look at what insurance can do to reduce other types of risks faced by many college students.

PERSONAL PROPERTY When most parents think of insurance, they think of theft and probably figure their homeowner’s policy covers it.

Most homeowner’s policies cover items like computers or other digital devices stolen from dorms. But Robert Courtemanche, chief executive of ACE Private Risk Services, said that the deductible on the policy still applied. “To get around this, parents could schedule items that are easily lost or stolen — such as a laptop — on their valuables policy, which has no deductible,” he said. “Or, they could ask if the college offers access to an insurance program with much lower limits and lower deductibles.”

For wealthy students who may go to college with expensive watches or jewelry, Mr. Laconi said putting those items on a valuable personal property policy was a must. An existing personal property policy may have been written based on the security of the child’s home. That may well change now that the child is living in a dorm.

For children living off campus, taking out a renter’s policy may make sense. These policies have lower premiums and deductibles to cover damage to furniture, appliances or the apartment in general. The insurer USAA said premiums could be as low as $10 a month for $2,500 in coverage, with more comprehensive policies offering $100,000 of coverage for $30 a month.

Renter’s policies have the additional benefit of teaching children about fiscal responsibility. “That first renter’s policy begins to build the child’s financial responsibility and insurance résumé,” said Ken Kilday, wealth manager at USAA.

Of course, the résumé could be tarnished if the child loses everything and files mountains of claims.

LIABILITY The more serious risks are those that can ruin students’ lives — and their parents’ finances — like being sued by a student who drank a beer in the child’s dorm room and then got in a car accident. This is where liability, or umbrella, policies come in. Their coverage starts when the liability on, say, an auto policy is exceeded.

Most affluent parents have these policies, with $1 million to $2 million in extra coverage. But Ms. Alderman said Chubb had written these policies up to $50 million. She said the wealthy had to ask themselves, “Would your job title or role in the community make you an appealing target for a lawsuit?”

Mr. Laconi recalled a claim in which a family was sued because their son was working at a party where another student drank too much, fell down the stairs and died. Because of that state’s laws, the lawyers for the dead student’s parents sued the student with money, even though he had not served the dead student any alcohol.

Aetna announces it will stop selling child-only health insurance polices in most states in October

Aetna announced today that it would stop selling child-only individual health insurance policies after October 1, 2010. A child-only policy is one sold to [for] a child who is under the age of 19. Many parents who cannot afford to insure the whole family will buy a policy just to protect the health of their children.

The announcement affects only new business sales. Aetna policy holders who already own a child-only plan will not be impacted by new rule. Current policies will continue as written and these policies will also be renewable. Child-only polices had been written under the Aetna Advantage Plans for Individuals, Families and the Self Employed.

Is change in response to new federal law?


Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers who sold health insurance policies would be prohibited from excluding children with pre-existing conditions from coverage beginning in 2010.

Just after the signing of the new federal law, insurance company lawyers attempted to argue that children with pre-existing conditions would have to wait until 2014 for guaranteed issue coverage, just as adults do.

The Obama administration through Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius immediately announced that it would publish regulations making the change effective September 1, 2010.

The insurance industry grudgingly accepted the direction. Karen Ignagni, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), responded that the insurance industry would “fully comply” with the principles set forth in the Secretary’s letter. AHIP is a trade organization and political advocacy group that represents over 1300 insurance carriers.

Are insurance companies finding new ways to avoid the requirements of the federal law?

Aetna admits the reason for stopping the sale of child-only policies is to allow the company to handle the upcoming changes which resulted from health care reform. Specifically Aetna notes that the requirement to insure children under the age of 19 on a guaranteed issue basis with no guidelines as to coverage requirements has the potential to increase the cost of these policies and make them unaffordable.

What remaining options are available for child-only policies?

Aetna says that if an application for a child-only policy is submitted for an effective date of October 1, 2010 or later, the underwriters will suggest the following options for covering the child:

add the child as a dependent to a parent's plan,
apply to your state’s CHIP plan (if eligible), or
check with federal government for alternative options at www.healthcare.gov
Currently the federal website has no options to suggest for child-only coverage.

Aetna’s announcement has indicated that this policy will become effective on October 1, 2010 in the following states: AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, NC, NE, NV, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, and WY. A later announcement will establish the effective date for the change in CT, MD, OH, and OK

HHS permits insurers to establish open enrollment periods for child coverage

Responding to concerns that the new health care law’s prohibition on denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions would significantly drive up costs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has clarified that plans may set up specific enrollment periods. Insurers had predicted that the non-discrimination coverage requirement that takes effect for most plans beginning on or after September 23 would result in parents enrolling their children only once they became sick.

Amid reports that many insurance companies were considering dropping child coverage altogether, the HHS on July 27 issued a fact sheet explaining, in question and answer format, how the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions applies to insurers offering coverage to children under 19 years old in the individual market. Specifically, the HHS clarified that:

Insurance issuers in the individual market may restrict enrollment of children under 19 to specific open enrollment periods – the number and length of such periods to be at the insurer’s discretion – if permitted under state law. Insurance issuers must abide by more stringent state laws, if applicable, that require issuers to maintain a continuous open enrollment period or regulate the number and/or frequency of these enrollment periods.

Child-only individual market insurance plans that existed on or prior to March 23, 2010, and that do not significantly change their benefits, cost sharing, and other features, will be “grandfathered” and thus exempt from the regulations prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions.

The administration will issue new regulations if it determines that insurers are using their enrollment periods to limit coverage access, or if children with pre-existing conditions are being diverted inappropriately from Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) to private insurance plans.

New Health Bill Permits Children to Remain on Parents’ Insurance

At a rally on Friday at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., President Obama got some of his loudest applause when he talked about a provision in the health care legislation that would allow adult children to remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until the age of 26.

The provision cited by the president is of the more significant changes included in the reconciliation bill in terms of what the legislation will mean in the short term for consumers of private health insurance.

The Senate-passed bill would have required insurers to offer dependent coverage for adult children, but only in new insurance policies. Existing policies would not have had to include the change.

Currently, states determine the age at which dependent children no longer must be covered by their parents’ plans, and the limits vary.

The reconciliation bill, which is to be voted on by the House on Sunday, would allow parents to keep their adult children on their insurance plans and would require all insurers to make such coverage available through existing policies. Of course, insurers could still charge for it, and the coverage might not be cheap.


The change would take effect six months after adoption of the legislation. The reconciliation bill says that the dependent coverage must be made available only if the adult child has no option to enroll in group health insurance coverage through an employer.

The provision is among the most popular aspects of the legislation because of its potential benefit to Americans who already have health insurance through the employers, which is to say a majority of the population.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also stressed the inclusion of that provision in the bill, noting at rallies and news conferences in recent days that college graduates would be free to pursue their dreams without worrying whether they could immediately obtain health insurance on their own.

A parent's worst nightmare: sick child, no insurance

Every parent knows it. The late-night sound of a child coughing uncontrollably. A flushed face that can only mean fever. A normally active child rendered listless by illness. For most, the worry is wrenching, but the routine is simple if urgent -- scoop up the child for an immediate trip to the family pediatrician's office, present an insurance card, fill out forms and perhaps fork over a co-pay.

But for some -- a growing number in Santa Cruz County, and elsewhere in this economy -- insurance for their children is something they just cannot afford. And for doctors treating children, they see an increasing panic among parents who cannot provide for their kids, who must take risks and shortcuts with their children's health.

Here are the stories of parents and families, of children and doctors. Here are the voices of mothers like Andrea Eaton, who has spent countless panicked hours navigating a bureaucratic labyrinth because she makes a few dollars too many to qualify two of her children for a state-funded insurance program.

Donna Gilmartin knew that panic, too. She'd just moved to town with Bryce, her then-10-week-old son. She could work only part-time, so she had no health insurance. Each day, she felt increasingly vulnerable. When her boss mentioned Healthy Kids, she quickly investigated and enrolled. The program was a boon to Bryce and a salve to Gilmartin's psyche. Healthy Kids came through for 1-year-old Tawny, too. When Dina Larsen, Tawny's mother, lost her job and her insurance, she said she experienced 10 of the most frightening days of her life. It was Healthy Kids that got life in balance again.

Then, there are the doctors, devoted pediatricians like Madhu Raghavan and Christine Griger, with a half-century of Santa Cruz pediatric care between them. They say they see an increasing number of kids like Bryce and Tawny -- but many of the ones they treat are children whose parents haven't been able to solve the insurance problem. They have no insurance.

And these physicians see something else. All too often, parents who can't afford to bring their children in try to care for their medical needs through long phone calls with doctors. When these uninsured kids show up, it's only when their condition is too bad to ignore. A once easy-to-care-for illness has become something serious.

These are the parents and the doctors who provide care for their children. These are the voices of the still unresolved children's insurance problem.

Richard Kipling works for the California HealthCare Foundation Center for Health Reporting.

Free Dental Work For Kids

Omaha, NE (KPTM) - Getting kids to go the dentist can be a challenging task.

But one program is making it easy for both kids and parents to polish the pearly whites.

It's called "Give Kids a Smile" and it was held today at the Douglas County Health Department Dental Clinic.

Ronald McDonald was there performing magic tricks and kids were having fun.

It sure didn't look like your normal dentist visit, but this event brightened the smiles on a lot of kids' faces. 6–year–old Lyssa Halterman is one.

It's probably because going to the dentist is a scary thing for most young kids.

But this event provides free dental work to youngsters who may not have gotten it otherwise.

"Dental care is the number one aliment with childhood diseases and a lot of kids just don't have access, parents can't afford it or don't have dental insurance so it's a big need," says Ronnett Davis, Supervisor of the Douglas County Health Department's Dental Clinic.

All the dental supplies were donated by local dentists, dental supply companies and the Ronald McDonald house.

About 10 dentists and 20 dental assistants are all volunteering their time and doing a little bit of everything.

"Basically we're providing exams, X–rays, cleaning, fluoride treatment, sealants, some restorations, some extractions, it just depends on the child," says Davis.

All of that work coming free of charge is important for the parents as well.

"It teaches children to take care of their teeth because you don't want your teeth rotting, so I think it's a pretty good deal," says Antanas Lizdas who brought his 2 kids to the event.

The Omaha District Dental Society and Douglas County Health Department teamed up for the "Give Kids a Smile" event.

This was the second year of the event and they look forward to continuing it in the years to come.

Program for Children Has Uncertain Future

WASHINGTON — As Democratic Congressional leaders work to merge the House and Senate versions of major health care legislation, a big question is what they will do about the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now provides coverage to more than nine million children and pregnant women and is expected to cover more than 14 million by 2013.

The House bill, by contrast, would end CHIP and redirect the millions of children either to Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for the poor, or to new health insurance exchanges where moderate-income Americans would be able to buy private coverage using new federal subsidies to help offset the cost.

Unlike many of the issues facing Senate and House negotiators, the question of what to do with CHIP is not just a cerebral policy point. In recent years, states have made huge strides in covering children, particularly those in low- and moderate-income families, and experts say those gains could be put at risk.

“Attention must be paid to the possibility that some children who lose CHIP coverage could fall through the cracks and become uninsured,” Genevieve M. Kenney and Allison Cook wrote last month in a brief prepared for the Urban Institute, the Washington research group.

Some House Democrats, including Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a lead author of the health care legislation, have said it is difficult to defend a stand-alone government insurance program for children once subsidies are available for entire families.

In Transition, Risks

But many children’s health advocates cite numerous risks. Simply shifting children from one program to another could result in some losing coverage, even on a temporary basis. And there is a chance that parents, even with new subsidies, will find coverage unaffordable and choose not to buy it for themselves or their children, despite a new mandate in both bills that nearly everyone obtain coverage.

Then there are more complicated situations, like those of children whose parents have mixed immigrant status. Under both the Senate and House bills, illegal immigrants would not be eligible for the insurance subsidies.

Some experts project that as many as 14 percent of children with health care through government programs come from such families. And while the bills would provide for the creation of child-only insurance policies, it is unclear how those policies would work and whether children would face difficulties obtaining coverage that way.

The bills also seek to push people with access to employer-sponsored health insurance to buy it, allowing exemptions only for families for whom such coverage would be extremely expensive. Many low-income workers already choose to enroll their children in CHIP because private coverage is too costly.

“The country has made remarkable progress in covering kids in recent years because of the success of CHIP and its companion program, Medicaid,” said Jocelyn A. Guyer, co-executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “It would be a major problem if health reform undercut these gains by shutting CHIP down too abruptly or by moving kids into coverage that isn’t as affordable and as well-designed to get them the care they need to develop and grow.”

In an effort to tilt the debate in favor of maintaining CHIP as a standalone program, Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Casey prevailed upon the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to include two more years of federal financing — through 2015 — which would serve as a bridge beyond the creation of insurance exchanges, where people would be able to buy subsidized private coverage.

Under the Senate bill, state-based exchanges would begin in 2014. The House bill calls for a national insurance exchange to begin in 2013.

Factoring in Medicaid

Tied directly to the question of CHIP’s future is the proposed expansion of Medicaid to include many more low-income Americans, particularly childless adults.

Medicaid would grow under both measures, with eligibility expanded to individuals and families earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (currently about $29,327) under the Senate bill, and up to 150 percent of the poverty level ($33,075) under the House bill.

States have generally expressed apprehension about the proposed Medicaid expansion, because they would eventually share in the cost of covering new enrollees. Medicaid generally provides more comprehensive coverage than CHIP, but potentially offers fewer choices of doctors and other health providers because of Medicaid’s low payment rates. States currently must provide Medicaid coverage to all children through age 5, from families earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, and to children ages 6 to 18 with family income up to 100 percent of the poverty level.

The House bill, in addition to more broadly expanding Medicaid eligibility, would also increase payment rates for primary care physicians — a step that many health advocates say is needed to improve access to providers for children and adults. The Senate bill does not increase Medicaid payment rates.

In a statement after the Senate adopted its health care bill on Dec. 24, Dr. Irwin Redlener, president of the Children’s Health Fund, a New York-based advocacy group, praised the preservation of CHIP, but criticized the Senate bill for not lifting Medicaid payment rates. “Unfortunately, the Senate bill fails to improve reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers and omits a provision to automatically enroll otherwise uninsured infants, both of which were in the House bill,” Dr. Redlener said.

The Fight Ahead

Mr. Rockefeller, in an interview just before the Senate adopted its bill, said that he was prepared to battle against his colleagues in the House to preserve CHIP in the final health care legislation. “I am not going to drop kids,” he said.

But Mr. Rockefeller also said he was optimistic that House Democratic leaders, however reluctant, would make the adjustments needed to get the final legislation through the Senate, where Democrats cannot afford to lose a single vote.

“The House doesn’t like the Senate, anyway,” he said. “I don’t blame them.”

News digest of local media -- Child insurance

At a strong push from local attorney C.V. Chen to prevent insurance fraud involving the murder of minors, the legislature on Thursday passed an amendment to the Insurance Law that bars any compensation in the event of the death of insured children aged under 15.
The following is a digest of some local media reports on this topic (Jan. 8,2010): United Daily News: The amendment forbids any payments at all in the event of the death of an insured child less than 15 years of age.

It requires that if a minor is insured for accidental death and dies before 15 years of age, the insurer shall return the premium plus interest accrued.

Under the existing law, the beneficiary can receive up to NT$2 million (US$62,700) in funeral expenses for an insured minor aged 14 or under, or those diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder who die before the age of 14.

The amendment was written to reduce ethical risks to children at the urging of C.V. Chen, a local attorney and president of the Republic of China Red Cross Society.

Although there is no provision for death benefits to the beneficiary of the policy in the event of the death of an insured child, the funeral payout can still be an attractive enough incentive for parents to murder their children, said Chen, while explaining his motive to push forward the law revision.

Hailing the passage of the revision as a manifestation of society caring about children's human rights, Chen said it is the results of concerted efforts of the Legislative Yuan, the administrative sectors and media outlets.

Liberty Times: With the amendment not to retroactively apply to insurance policies sold prior to the amendment, about 520,000 insured minors will be not affected by the amendment.

Regarding accidental death insurance for insured who are mentally challenged, the amendment provides that in addition to funeral expenses, all other death benefits are void.

The amount of funeral expenses is limited to 50 percent (which currently is NT$555,000) of the deductible amount set forth in the Estate and Gift Tax Law. There have been numerous cases of murder for the purpose of claiming life insurance benefits, according to data provided by police authorities and insurance businesses.

As an example, Chen Jui-chin was sentenced to death in 2004 for a record fifth time for killing three sons and two wives for about NT$18 million in insurance payments between 1985 and 1998.

China Times: The amendment will not be retroactive, which minimizes the impact on insurance companies.

The amendment states clearly that a policy holder must be 15 or above before death benefits can be received in the event of the policyholder's death.

In future, if a policyholder under 15 dies, the only benefits that can be collected are the original premium fees plus interest.