Off Topic For Brain Injury Michigan Patients And All Citizens

[Croppled1]

I cannot imagine where many would be now if there was a limit on medical coverage for No Fault Auto Medical Payments. The Fact that everyone pays into catostrophic claims makes MIchigan one of the most humane States in this regard . Injured parties have no picnic but they do not end up taking down their whole families from injuries that were not their fault though everyone is covered regardless because it is necessary . Please read and make notes you disagree with changes to PIP limits in Michigan . We are able to have affordable rates because everyone shares the burden . If you ever question the need you can tour your local brain injury or rehabillitation facility . I often argue about Staff and what goes on but never about the patients like Tony the Tiger says ....." Theirrrrrrr Grrrreat " ! You could never do enough for them . Though currently no known residential facilities allow patients to participate in the MMMP .

 

 

THE FIGHT TO SAVE AUTO NO-FAULT is still on with votes possible this fall

 

, two bills introduced in the Michigan Senate (SB 293 and SB 294) were referred to the Senate Committee on Insurance. If enacted, these bills would fundamentally change the basic nature of the Michigan auto no-fault system. Senate Bill 293 -- PIP Cost Shift 1. Insurance companies would be authorized to sell auto policies with maximum no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits as low as $50,000. Higher limits would be available for higher premiums. Victims suffering catastrophic injury resulting in medical expenses higher than the selected limits – including children who never had the right to choose – would be forced to turn to Medicaid, Medicare, or health insurance, thus increasing the burden on Michigan taxpayers and the health insurance system. 2. Persons who do not own automobiles, and thus have no insurance coverage or who do not live with relatives who have no-fault insurance coverage, would be limited to $50,000 of no-fault PIP benefits. This would create a potential for great economic hardship for senior citizens and disabled people who do not drive, forcing them to turn to Medicaid or Medicare and again increase the burden on Michigan taxpayers and the health insurance system. 3. Victims who incur medical expenses in excess of the PIP benefit limits they selected would be able to sue the at-fault driver for the excess expenses, thus increasing litigation and leaving many consumers with no choice but to buy higher liability insurance protection, thereby increasing insurance premiums. 4. Workers who draw no-fault PIP benefits under insurance policies issued to their employer, would arguably be limited to the coverage chosen by the employer regardless of whether the worker chose to purchase higher coverage on their personal auto insurance policy.

 

　

 

5. Most no-fault PIP claims paid through the Assigned Claims Facility would be limited to $50,000 of coverage, thereby increasing the burden on health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and ultimately the taxpayers.

 

6. More no-fault claims would be paid on a coordinated basis, thereby requiring many accident victims to first exhaust their health insurance coverages before no-fault benefits would be payable.

 

7. Medical providers serving severely injured patients who selected inadequate PIP benefit limits would no longer be able to provide services, thus resulting in a significant loss of jobs in the health care industry and a reduction in access to necessary medical care.

 

Senate Bill 294 – Home Care and Fee Schedules

 

1. Benefits payable for attendant care or nursing services rendered to an injured person in his or her home are subject to two caps:

 

a) A weekly hours cap – This cap would limit payment for in-home attendant care and nursing services to no more than 56 hours per week if performed by an individual who is not certified, registered, or licensed to render such care.

 

b) An hourly rate cap – This cap would limit payment for in-home care performed by an individual who is not certified, registered, or licensed to render such care to no more than $11 per hour for "basic care" and no more than $17 per hour for "skilled care." If the services are performed by an individual who is certified, registered, or licensed to render such care, payment for such services could not exceed $17 per hour, which is far below the standard commercial rate.

 

Both caps are applicable to family provided in-home care as well as in-home care rendered by commercial agencies and hospitals.

 

2. Workers compensation fee schedules will be applicable to every physician, hospital, clinic, institution, or other person rendering treatment to auto accident victims. No provider charges in excess of those set forth in the workers compensation fee schedules would be compensable. This would result in a significant loss of revenue for major Trauma Centers, a reduction in medical services, and a loss of jobs.

 

3. The provisions dealing with in-home care and fee schedules are applicable immediately upon passage of the bill, regardless of whether the patient sustained injury in an automobile accident occurring before the bill was passed. In other words, the new rules would apply retroactively to all existing claims.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Senate Bills 293 and 294 are a clear confirmation that the Michigan auto insurance industry desires to effectively repeal Michigan’s model no–fault insurance system. If these bills are enacted, the consequences would be dire and would include, among other things, the following:

 

Increased Taxes – resulting from a massive cost shift from no-fault insurance to Medicaid and Medicare.

 

Increased Health Insurance Costs – resulting from massive cost shifts from no-fault insurance to health insurance coverages.

 

A Loss of Jobs – resulting from diminished reimbursement to medical providers who treat severely injured accident victims.

 

Reduced Access to Medical Care – resulting from unfunded essential medical and rehabilitation services.

 

Increased Insurance Premiums – resulting from the need to purchase higher liability insurance to protect consumers from increased exposure to liability for a victim’s unfunded medical expenses.

 

Increased Litigation – resulting from victims suing at-fault drivers for unfunded medical care.

 

Limited Insurance Coverage – for seniors, disabled people and those who do not drive resulting from statutorily mandated minimum coverage for non-motorists who have no household auto insurance coverage.

 

It is important to note that there is absolutely no guarantee in these bills that insurance companies would significantly reduce auto insurance premiums and keep those premiums reduced for a significant period of time. Stated differently, the loss of essential insurance benefits resulting from this legislation would be permanent, while any rate relief that may occur would likely be minimal and temporary.

 

In short, these bills are bad for drivers,

 

bad for taxpayers and bad for Michigan!

 

[Hayduke]

listen up folks,

 

this poster does not usually agree with me. I work in the insurance field, directly related to auto insurance. What Croppled posts is 100% true. Read this post and realize, it could be me it could be you, how should one affected respond...

 

Thank you Croppled for your great and honest and accurate post.

 

I have been in the business for 30 years, no virgin. I can absolutely state MI has the best auto ins law in the mf country. On behalf of consumers that is (you and me, git it?). This is an attempt to give insurance companies more money, legally earned. institutionalized. To think they would lower your auto insurance rates for this massive screw job, well, is absurd. This is about corporate bottom line.

 

This is indeed, not right. They will lower your rates for a year to show you their good intentions, then once they get the control they desire, they will base pricing on 'what ever the market will bear'.

 

Write and call your reps and sens on this bill.

 

HUGE...

[+wolfgang]

not always a big fan of no fault,I was hit by a drunk driver and although my car was totaled she was not held accountable for bunny muffin!!!

[Hayduke]

Wolfgang while my heart goes out to you, I must ask, was yours a medical claim or a collision claim? What croppled1 is talking about is a medical claim. I am not trying to address anything but the medical aspect.

 

peace

[+Dizledot]

not always a big fan of no fault,I was hit by a drunk driver and although my car was totaled she was not held accountable for bunny muffin!!!

 

Same for the guy who hit me, nothing , nota, zip, not jack bunny muffin! The jerk didn't even get a ticket and he had no insurance! Sorry I get worked up over insurance and insurance issues. The jackass moved after he hit me so I couldn't even sue him for my injuries, or I should say I got a million dollar judgements against him but hey he didn't have jack dodo so I got screwed big time. Don't like insurance companies or politicians who don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground.

[CedarSpringsCG]

The whole no fault thing always made no sense to me, until I moved here, and then I thought it was the greatest thing in the world. I come from CA, and if someone hits you, and they aren't insured, your screwed. Just like Dizz said, if they have nothing, you get nothing. But here, you insure yourself, not who you hit.

 

If these pass, like HD says, they won't lower rates for maybe just a brief bit. I guarantee you they will charge the same amount or more, for less coverage.

 

Sure insurance is great for a fender bender, but really why do you have it? I mean in 12 years in MI, I have been in 1 accident (knock on wood) that had 0 medical claim. In that time I have spent well over $6000 in insurance at least. The accident was just over $2000 in damage to both vehicles. I would have been much better off not getting insurance and just saving my money. After deductible I would have like $4500 left over PLUS interest.

 

However I keep good insurance because all it takes is one jerk on the road not paying attention and next thing you know, you are filing catastrophic claims. And really, most of the time it isn't a rich guy who hits you, it is some guy down on his luck, and suing him won't get you anything except a piece of paper, ruining his life and yours. You are both better off with the insurance the way it is now.

 

But it is just like social security, the Catastrophic claims fund had plenty of money, until the state went in and "borrowed" tons of it, a no interest loan, now it is in trouble because the politicians couldn't leave their hands off it and don't have the money to repay it.

 

/sigh

[mrd]

I used to deal with this stuff and I would advise clients to get the max uninsured motorist coverage they could. Now most insurance companies and agents have no problem with this.But I had one client where the clerk spent half an hour trying to dissuade her against this. It cost nine bucks a year for her! She came back amazed agreeing with me that something was wrong there. The clerk was obviously instructed to act as he did. The only possible looser was the insurance co.

 

This is a case where the insurance companies yell about stuff but then they want a more socialistic approach rather than paying the bill themselves.