WHY IS BIG INSURANCE SO MOTIVATED TO ELIMINATE NO-FAULT / PIP?

The simple reason that Big Insurance wants PIP to sunset is this: THEY WANT TO MAKE ALL THE RULES. Currently the No-Fault Act has checks and balances against potential abuses by health care providers and insurers alike. Every few years Insurers have tried to make the rules more favorable to insurers. Two years ago, trumpeting the same tune about run away fraud, Big Insurance touched the promised land when they convinced legislators not to extend No-Fault past October 1, 2007. If No-Fault is allowed to sunset, insurers will have turned the maxim “He who has all the gold makes the rules” on its head so that “He (Big Insurance) who makes the rules has the ability to make all the gold”.

For 36 years Florida’s No-Fault system has provided mandatory insurance protection for Floridians injured in automobile related accidents. As a result a large system of services, billings and payments has evolved as more people drive and are injured on Florida’s roads. Insurers know that even if No-Fault expires there will still be a need for similar coverage. But, without the statutorily created coverage and the corresponding consumer protections of the current system Big Insurance can create similar coverage, sell it, administer it, and pay, dispute or deny claims by whatever rules they like.

On August 22, 2007 Representative Bogdanoff unveiled the House Leadership’s vision of No-Fault Reform, what I call the "Bogdanoff PIP Insurer Protection Act of 2007". On Wednesday she defended against my criticism that her bill was not offered in good faith and intended to kill PIP. She was quoted as saying “I worked my butt off to come to this solution…” Although that may be true she doesn’t tell you that the “solution” she created does nothing for the consumer, doctor or hospital and everything for Big Insurance. A partial list of protections in the Bogdanoff PIP Insurer Protection Act are as follows:

1. Decreases benefits for everyone except hospitals.


2. Allows Insurers to create unlimited and undefined requests for documentation from doctors.


3. Removes a requirement that insurers must pay providers for answering the above request.


4. Extends the time for insurers to pay.


5. Takes away doctors right to interest payment for insurer paying late.


6. Takes away the consumers right to know why bills are not being paid timely.

Other proposed changes to the law have nothing to do with fraud. These changes uniformly work to protect Big Insurance. Legislators should reject this insurer protectionism just like they rejected Bogdanoff’s attempt to pass House Bill 7077 in March. That bill, brought to the floor less than 2 months after January’s Insurance Reform , would have allowed insurers unlimited raises to business rates without regulator approval and removed a requirement that storm damage claims be paid within 90 days.

Bottom Line - If Personal Injury Protections sunsets then before the next sunrise look to see State Farm and others offer quasi-PIP policies with countless rules which work against the consumer and enhance their corporate profits.

Darin Lentner, Republican for State Representative, District 91

Political advertisement paid for and approved by Darin Lentner (Republican) for State House of Representatives, District 91.

HOUSE LEADERSHIP UNWILLING TO PREVENT HEALTH INSURANCE TAX

Daily I read the dialogue coming from both sides of the No-Fault Debate. Allegedly keeping the interests of the general public in mind each side attempts to score points using partial truths directed at framing the issues in the light most favable to the special interest they support. The reality is that, as this issue has been framed, most voters don't care about it enough to scare the House Leaders (Followers of Big Insurance) into changing the positions they have promised to take.

There has been broad discussion about how a lapse in No-Fault will effect Auto Insurance, Hospitals, Doctors, Lawyers, Emergency Response Services, Insurance Agents and the like. However, there has been little attention given to the broader economic effects of a Lapse in No-Fault. These broader effects are what should direct our Legislative Leaders to the proper result. Instead of blind allegiance to the contributions they received (and continue to receive) from State Farm and others the leaders should do what is right for the state economy and the public.

In announcing her No-Fault Bill on Tuesday August 21 Representative Bogdanoff suggests that the Senate is now ultimately responsible for whether No-Fault is extended in some form or dies on October 1. She fails to point out that her proposed bill is the nearly the same as that rejected by the Senate previously and that it does not even have the support of many House Republicans let alone the entire house. At best this is a thinly veiled attempt to kill No-Fault and follow State Farms wishes while shirking legislative responsibility for the action (or inaction).

Personally, I believe that modest anti-fraud provisions and subsequent enforcement are adequate to address the legitimate concerns of the majority of stakeholders. Prior changes to the No-Fault law have already provided Big Insurance with substantial protections and profits have risen accordingly.

Rather than continuing to debate the merits of either position I would like to point out two significant consequences to allowing the Lapse of No-Fault. Consequences which I believe are more significant to the average citizen then either sides agenda and which should frame the debate for the purposes of our policy makers.

1ST CONSEQUENCE - LAPSE OF NO-FAULT CREATES HEALTH INSURANCE TAX

There is little debate that without No-Fault the premiums that individuals, businesses, local and state governments pay for health insurance will increase. Early one Blue Cross and Blue Shield advised that premiums would rise if No-Fault expires. Surely the other insurers will do the same. Since our local and state governments provide insurance to their employees a rise in insurance rates will tax the budgets of these institutions. Those businesses which provide insurance will take on more burden if premiums increase. And, most of Florida's citizens will feel the increase in their individual insurance premiums or percentage they pay for group policies. State Farm and others claim that allowing No-Fault to lapse will create a savings in automobile insurance. This is half true only if insured do not purchase other coverage to replace this coverage and protect against more uninsured motorists.

2ND CONSEQUENCE - UNPAID HEALTH CLAIMS WILL CREATE
FURTHER DRAG ON FALTERING STATE ECONOMY

Our legislature is already scheduled to meet in September for a special session to address the current and future budget shortfalls which are a result of a significant slow down in our state economy. Although No-Fault claims are not a significant portion of the daily cash flow in our state there are many businesses, professionals and government entities which rely to some extent on payment of No-Fault claims to remain solvent. Without these payments hospitals, doctors and other service providers will wait months if not years to recover partial payments. Our elected officials need to ask themselves "is it good public policy to further stress a state economy which is already near crisis?" Of course not, that is why the issue is not being discussed openly.

In my opinion either of these consequences provides enough reason to extend No-Fault for the interests of Florida's citizens. (At least until our economy recovers) But together, these economic costs far outweigh any perceived fraud in the system.

In early July I announced my candidacy for the District 91 House Seat because the incumbent legislator appeared to be making decisions which were not in the best interest of her constituents. If Representative Bogdanoff , as the leader of the No-Fault Bill in Florida's House of Representatives fails to pass legislation which extends No-Fault it will be another example of her willingness to blindly follow the money of Big Insurance to the detriment of Eastern Broward and Palm Beach counties citizens.



Political advertisement paid for and approved by Darin Lentner, Republican, for State House of Representatives, District 91.

Change In Tallahassee: Bogdanoff Gets Republican Challenger

Change In Tallahassee: Bogdanoff Gets Republican Challenger

Running for Florida House of Representatives District 91

Hi, My name is Darin Lentner. I am running for the Florida House of Representatives in District 91. For those of you who know me, thank you for your support and words of encouragement. For those of you that I have not had the pleasure and honor to meet, I hope you will get to know me via these pages over the coming months as we head toward the 2008 election. I am sure we will eventually have an opportunity to meet.

I would like to use this forum to express my views and to solicit feedback from my constituency. Please feel free to contact me via this forum or through the contact page on my website at www.darinlentner.com.