Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Bills push major insurance reforms

One would return auto coverage to no-fault system

By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published February 4, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Colorado Government

More stories »

Legislative Democrats who pushed through what were considered major insurance reforms last year have come back this year with a number of bills that could turn the industry on its head.

Efforts have been introduced in the past week to:

* Return to the no-fault auto insurance system.

* Require health insurers to cover a slew of new preventive- care services.

* Stop insurance companies from charging women higher rates.

A number of other related bills are expected to come in the near future as well.

Families will pay much higher insurance rates if all of the measures pass, insurance industry leaders warned - this, during a time of recession. And some insurance companies might flee the state, taking jobs with them, a prominent Republican said.

But backers of the bills argue that people are wasting money already if they're buying insurance that won't cover them in their time of need.

Getting more preventive care and conditions covered will mean fewer uninsured Coloradans will skip out on bills, they say. When bills go unpaid, it forces hospitals to hike costs, which in turn forces insurance companies to raise premiums, they added.

"Unless we're willing to go with comprehensive universal reform, where we're dealing with a single-payer system, we have to make sure insurance works," said Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat who is sponsoring several of the bills.

The biggest fight will come over the proposal to reinstate the no-fault auto insurance system, which presumes no fault in a crash. Passage would ensure that medical providers get paid quickly, and leave it to insurers to argue over who is responsible for those costs, supporters say.

Legislators scrapped the no- fault system in 2003 for a tort system, which delays payments until fault is established. Since then, premiums have fallen by an average of 35 percent and Colorado has fallen from having the ninth-highest auto insurance rates in the country to having the 23rd-highest, said Carole Walker, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association.

But supporters of the change say that medical providers are getting stiffed and are hurting.

Authors of the bills affecting medical insurance have different reasonings for their proposals, but all would remove flexibility from current plans to include new treatments or requirements on the policies.

For example, Sen. Paula Sandoval is sponsoring a measure that would raise from 25 to 30 the age for which insurers would be required to cover unmarried adult children of clients for an additional cost. The Denver Democrat said she has been asked to do so by supporters of organ-transplant recipients who say young adults can't get the organs they need without insurance.

The proposals come after the Democratic-led General Assembly passed laws last year that require insurance companies to justify rate hikes and increase fines on companies that deny claims for which clients are covered.

House Minority Caucus Chairwoman Amy Stephens, R-Monument, said that under the new bills, insurance companies will have to raise rates every time they are required to add services, and Coloradans are the ones who will pay.

"It's really an attack on Colorado's families because they're going to be the ones picking up the price tag," Stephens said. "It has apparently escaped our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we're in tough times."

The first major battle is expected to take place today, when a Senate committee hears a bill from Carroll that would establish stricter qualifications for who can review and deny insurance claims.

Insurance matters

Four insurance bills expected to generate the most debate this session:

* Senate Bill 159 by Sen. Paula Sandoval, D-Denver, requires carriers to offer dependent coverage of unmarried children up to age 30, rather than 25, for an additional premium.

* House Bill 1204 by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, requires insurers to offer seven kinds of preventive health care services on all policies.

* House Bill 1224 by Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, prohibits health insurance carriers from varying the rates of individual policies based on the gender of the person being insured.

* House Bill 1226 by Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, reverts the current tort auto insurance system to a no-fault system in which drivers will be required to buy more medical insurance on their policies.

Comments

  • February 4, 2009

    11:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rwmorrisonjr writes:

    Once again, the legislators are going after the "fear factor" in the name of preventing uninsured motorists. If the rates go up, then more people will drive without insurance, forcing everyone's rates to go up again. Hmm, just what we need in a down economy, more increases in rates.

  • February 4, 2009

    11:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dave437 writes:

    Legislators are completely out of touch with reality. They want to require more benefits be provided by insurances which is going to make the insurance more expensive. Fewer individuals and businesses will be able to afford it. Consequently, even more people won't have insurance. They don't propose more basic insurance that would be cheaper. This really makes no sense with an economic downturn. The arguments made in support of these preventive health requirements make no sense. Individuals won't get preventive care because they won't have any insurance. Morgan Caroll obviously wants socialized medicine. Insurance that works would be more affordable. Democrats want to force these requirements and then turn around when more people are uninsured and use it as an excuse to have a single payer system. People apparently have been sold on the notion that they are entitled to no cost health care. It will be more expensive than the current system, there will be long waits, and there will be equally bad services for everyone.