[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE: ARE CONSUMERS PROTECTED FOR THE LONG TERM? ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ---------- JULY 24, 2008 ---------- Serial No. 110-140 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE: ARE CONSUMERS PROTECTED FOR THE LONG TERM? LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE: ARE CONSUMERS PROTECTED FOR THE LONG TERM? ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 24, 2008 __________ Serial No. 110-140 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov ? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 58-423 WASHINGTON : 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ANNA G. ESHOO, California BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, Vice Chair Mississippi LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania ROY BLUNT, Missouri JANE HARMAN, California STEVE BUYER, Indiana TOM ALLEN, Maine GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania HILDA L. SOLIS, California MARY BONO MACK, California CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREG WALDEN, Oregon JAY INSLEE, Washington LEE TERRY, Nebraska TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma JIM MATHESON, Utah TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN BARROW, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana DORIS O. MATSUI, California ______ Professional Staff Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk David L. Cavicke, Minority Staff Director 7_____ Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations BART STUPAK, Michigan, Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana Ranking Member Vice Chairman ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky HENRY A. WAXMAN, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JAY INSLEE, Washington JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement.................................... 1 Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement.................................... 3 Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement................................. 5 Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening statement....................................... 6 Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement................................. 8 Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 9 Witnesses Bonnie Burns, Training and Policy Specialist, California Health Advocates...................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 14 Jack E. Vogelsong, Chief, Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Division of Long-term Living................................... 32 Prepared statement........................................... 33 Marc Cohen, Ph.D., President LifePlans, Inc...................... 38 Prepared statement........................................... 40 John E. Dicken, Director, Health Care Division, U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................................... 53 Prepared statement........................................... 55 Al Bode, Charles City, Iowa...................................... 78 Prepared statement........................................... 80 Mike Kreidler, Commissioner, Office of the Insurance Commissioner, State of Washington.............................. 114 Prepared statement........................................... 115 Eric Dinallo, Superintendent, New York State Insurance Department 118 Prepared statement........................................... 121 Kevin McCarty, Commissoner of Insurance, State of Florida........ 136 Prepared statement........................................... 138 Sean Dilweg, Commissioner of Insurance, State of Wisconsin....... 156 Prepared statement........................................... 236 Answers to submitted questions............................... 159 Thomas ``Buck'' Stinson, President, Glenworth Long Term Care..... 198 Prepared statement........................................... 201 Thomas Samoluk, Vice President and Counsel, Government Affairs, John Hancock Life Insurance Company............................ 214 Prepared statement........................................... 216 John Wells, Senior Vice President, Long Term Care, Conseco, Inc.. 235 Prepared statement........................................... 237 Cameron Waite, Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, Penn Treaty Network America.................................... 248 Prepared statement........................................... 250 Submitted Material Chart entitled ``State Long-Term Care Partnership Program Progress'', Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc............. 269 Glossary of terms for hearing.................................... 270 Subcommittee exhibit binder...................................... 273 LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE: ARE CONSUMERS PROTECTED FOR THE LONG TERM? ---------- THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Stupak (chairman) presiding. Members present: Representatives Stupak, Melancon, Doyle, Schakowsky, Inslee, Dingell (ex officio), Shimkus, Walden, Murphy, Burgess, and Barton (ex officio). Also present: Representative Pomeroy. Staff present: Scott Schloegel, Kristine Blackwood, Michael Heaney, Angela Davis, Kyle Chapman, John Sopko, Alan Slobodin, Peter Spencer, and Whitney Drew. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Stupak. This meeting will come to order. Today we have a hearing entitled ``Long-Term Care Insurance: Are Consumers Protected for the Long Term?'' Each member will be recognized for a 5-minute opening statement. I will begin. One of the greatest challenges facing Americans as they plan for retirement is dealing with the risk of becoming seriously disabled and having to rely on family members or paid caregivers for assistance with their basic daily activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, going to the bathroom, and even getting out of bed or a chair. While we all hope to live out our days happy, healthy, and independent in our own homes, the possibility that we will require assistance from others is all too real. Some studies predict that over two-thirds of all Americans over the age of 65 will require long-term care services at some point in their lives. This year alone, over 9 million Americans will use long-term care services. By 2020, the number is expected to increase to 12 million. The costs of long-term care can be staggering. The average cost for 1 year of nursing home care is currently about $70,000. Assistance in a person's own home can be less costly but still averages about $20,000 per year. For those struggling with Alzheimer's, the costs of care may be catastrophic. Most American families are unable to bear these high costs for even a short time. More Americans are buying private long- term care insurance as a way to deal with these expenses if they become seriously disabled or chronically ill. The Medicaid Long-Term Care Partnership Program, which Congress expanded in 2005, seeks ways to encourage long-term care insurance purchases so that the States can spread out the financial burden of long-term care with their citizens. The Partnership program has also played an important role of encouraging States to adopt the provisions of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Model Act. A key question for this committee is how to persuade States to implement the National Association of Insurance Commissioners,' NAIC, model laws and regulations more completely. In an effort to encourage this process, Congress may look to the partnership and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, as leverage to improve consumer protection on a national basis. Today's hearing will focus largely on the current state of affairs for consumers who have long-term care policies and whether they are adequately protected from unfair insurance denials when they need to use their policies or unfair premium increases. This is the second hearing that the subcommittee has held on long-term care delivery and financing. Our last long-term care hearing focused on nursing home quality of care. Today's hearing is in fact the first hearing that the subcommittee has held on long-term care insurance in 18 years. Much has changed in the past 18 years. More than 7 million Americans now hold a long-term care insurance policy. The nursing-home-only policies of the past have been replaced by broader and more flexible policies that will cover in-home services and assisted living facilities. Still, it is not always easy for individuals and families to decide whether to purchase long-term care insurance. Premiums can be very expensive, totaling several thousand dollars every year. Many people may not qualify, especially when they attempt to purchase the insurance late in life. The dizzying array of insurance choices can make it difficult for consumers to know which policy is best for them. Part of the challenge for consumers is the changing nature of long-term care services themselves. Today, assisted living and home care are common alternatives to staying in a nursing home. These options did not exist when many people bought their policies 15 to 20 years ago. We can only imagine how long-term care insurance may be different in the future. How will we guarantee that people who purchase long-term care insurance today will receive the services they purchased 20 years from now when they ultimately need it? For many consumers, long-term care insurance has played a vital role in their ability to pay for care. For others, however, it has fallen short. Insurance companies may raise insurance premiums after a person has been paying into the system for several years. These unexpected increases may be passed on at a time when people are retired and living on a fixed income, paying for gas, groceries, home heat, or other essential items. Policyholders may find themselves with a difficult choice of paying more out of their fixed incomes or accepting lower benefits that will not cover the cost of the care. Even after consumers have faithfully paid their premiums for years, they may find that their claims are denied without any explanation. Efforts to complain or appeal the denial of benefits may be difficult, if not impossible. All too often, insurance companies build walls of red tape to keep their customers from appealing unjust denials, even though their success on appeals remains great. These problems emerge just at the time when people are most vulnerable and least able to advocate for themselves. Without a strong family network to help them, many people may simply give up and pay for care out of their pocket when they should not have to. Others end up turning to the Medicaid program for assistance. Today's hearing will examine the challenges faced by consumers, the States, the Federal Government and long-term care industry in making sure that long-term care insurance lives up to its promise. On our first panel, we will hear from witnesses reflecting a variety of perspectives including consumer advocates, family members and industry leaders. We will also hear from the Government Accountability Office, which will be reporting its findings into how well consumers are protected under the current system. The GAO's report is a culmination of work undertaken at the request of Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, as well as Senators Kohl, Grassley, Clinton, Dorgan, Klobuchar, and Obama. On our second panel, we will welcome the insurance commissioners of four States who have been leaders in long-term care insurance. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners represented today by Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner Sean Dilweg has played a vital role in development standards to protect consumers. Our third and final panel we will hear from four of the biggest long-term care insurance providers, two of which have been subject to serious and troubling complaints. We look forward to hearing from these two companies, Penn Treaty and Conseco, on what steps they are taking to correct these problems and how they will improve the customer service provided to policyholders. Congress owes it to the consumers, State regulators, and industry to make sure that Congress is doing all that we can to ensure that consumers can place their full trust in the important long-term care health insurance that they have purchased. Mr. Stupak. With that, I next turn to my friend and colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for his opening statement, please. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Shimkus. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just over 2 months ago, we began this committee oversight into long-term care issues with a look at nursing home quality of care safeguards. As I noted at the time, long-term care is an intensely personal concern for many people because when entrusting our most vulnerable citizens, our loved ones, to the care of strangers, there is a fundamental need to know they are in good hands. The question posed by today's hearing examines a related concern, which is to ensure our most vulnerable citizens who have purchased long-term care insurance are in good hands financially should they need to pay for long-term care at the time they need it. Home-based care can run an average of $15,000 per year and more, assisted living averages $36,000 per year and more, and nursing home care runs $76,000 a year, much more in some urban areas, all of which costs may double in 25 years. As these cost estimates suggest, long-term care can be financially devastating and so it is wise to plan ahead for long-term care costs and wise public policy to encourage such planning. People who have planned ahead and purchased insurance should be commended. They should be assured of the financial reliability of the firms with which they contract. They should be assured that contractual promises of insurance companies will be met and met in a timely manner. We will hear this morning about problems some insurers have had maintaining their financial viability which has resulted in rate increases. We will hear about confusing marketing and unexplainable claims handling, delays. and denials. The impact of this will be discussed by Ms. Burns of the California Health Advocates and Mr. Bode, who will recount the heart-wrenching and expensive delays getting claims paid for his mother, who is in a nursing home with dementia. Spotlighting the problems with rate setting and claims handling helps expose issues that should be addressed by the industry and state regulators and it is important that we probe these issues this morning. We should be mindful that by all accounts the long-term insurance industry is considered relatively young and evolving rapidly. Premiums collected have grown from $16 billion 10 years ago to $110 billion last year. This industry experienced explosive growth from the 1980s during which proper pricing and oversight of the pricing in the early years suffered from lack of claims experience. At the same time, regulators and consumers were on a steep learning curve. Given this dynamic situation, it is important we put the problems, serious as they are for some individuals, in context. Despite the troubling reports, available data show long-term care insurance delivers on its promises. In 2006, of some 720,000 claims filed, roughly 96 percent of all the claims were paid and paid in a timely manner. So we should be careful about painting the industry with too broad a brush. This is not to minimize the situation for those with claim problems. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, an average of 70 percent of claims complaints States receive are overturned in favor of consumers, a pattern of error not typically found in other lines of health-related insurance, the NAIC has noted. This is not acceptable and this situation should be improved. Fortunately, we have a range of knowledgeable witnesses this morning who can speak to all aspects of this situation. The Government Accountability Office reports uneven regulatory oversight of rate setting and claims handling by the States. I look forward to discussing this with the four State insurance commissioners with us this morning. I also look forward to discussing the role federal standards have in raising the quality of the products consumers buy. Long-term care partnership plans, which were expanded under the Deficit Reduction Act, appear to provide one avenue for more-uniform standards. Are there other steps Congress and States should take to ensure that the plans people pay for today will provide the benefits they need 20 years from now? And finally, it is critical that we hear from the four insurers today. Penn Treaty and Conseco were singled out last year in the New York Times article that prompted this subcommittee's inquiry and more recently Conseco reached a settlement with State insurance regulators following a multi- State market conduct examination. Both have an opportunity to provide their perspective on these matters and all four can help us understand what the industry can do to address the legitimate problems that we have identified. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This promises to be a very informative hearing. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Schakowsky for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing on an issue that will become more and more critical as the Baby Boom generation retires, as Americans live longer and as the number of options for long-term care services grows. As the former executive director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens, I have been concerned about a lack of a national long-term care policy for a very long time. I guess it is about 20 years or so that I have been looking into this issue. One of the reasons I wanted to join this committee is to help craft that policy. While Medicaid remains a central component in providing long-term care for the elderly and people with disabilities, it is clear that long-term care insurance will play a role in meeting those needs. In my State of Illinois, there are over 250,000 long-term care policies, and I am one of them, so I know the importance of this issue, and as more and more Americans buy long-term care insurance policies, we need to consider how Congress can act to make sure that consumers are protected. Today as we discuss this issue and the future, I believe it is necessary that we ask several questions. What role should the Federal Government play in promoting long-term care insurance, and if we do so, how do we ensure that we are promoting a quality product? How do we make sure that the product that consumers purchase today is there to provide the services that they need in the future? How can we make sure that consumers have adequate information about how long-term care insurance, whether is the right option for them, and if so, how to select among the various insurance products? How do we make sure that premiums are adequate for solvency purposes and stable for consumers? Is there a need to address underwriting, marketing, consumer appeals, and other practices? As our witnesses will tell us today, we face particular challenges in answering those questions. We are dealing with an insurance product where policyholders may pay premiums for decades before long-term care services are needed. We should also expect that insurance products and long-term care services will change even more over the next several decades. This means that we need to be both forward thinking in how we approach this problem and also that regulatory responses will need to be ongoing and responsive to change in a timely manner. I know that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has already issued a series of model regulations on long-term care insurance and I appreciate its effort to expand coverage of home- and community-based services to deal with lapses in premium payments and to look at the needs for inflation adjustments. I look forward to hearing more from the witnesses and all of you, and again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding such an important and informative hearing. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Next Mr. Barton for opening statement, please. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Barton. Thank you, Chairman Stupak and Ranking Member Shimkus for this hearing. I think long-term healthcare is arguably the most important healthcare issue that is seldom mentioned. It has huge potential. On the upside, it is something that we have been trying to encourage at the congressional level for a number of years. It is obviously something that needs to be looked at closely. I want to thank you for making sure that we have a comprehensive set of witnesses, a very balanced number of panels. I want to thank in advance our commissioners from the various States that are here. I think their testimony will be illuminating. This is a big issue. It is a big problem. It is an essential financial tool for people who seek to plan what can be the crushing costs of assisted daily living in their later life. We are told that there are 7 million Americans who have a long-term health policy and we hope that that number will increase. Unfortunately, we are also told that there are probably 12 million Americans who need a long-term health policy who are already at age 65 or older. It is obvious that as our population ages, more and more people are going to need long-term healthcare. The question is, how will we pay for that care? I think everyone knows that today Medicaid, which is supposed to be for low-income medical assistance, that two- thirds of the Medicaid budgets in most States go to paying for the care of our senior citizens in nursing homes. That is not what Medicaid was intended for. Think what we could do if we could come up with a comprehensive long-term healthcare policy for America that all Americans over 65 actually use, how much money that would free up for Medicaid. If we are going to have a long-term healthcare system that is based on private insurance, we have to have trust in that system. Keeping your word is essential in everybody's lives. Insurance isn't government welfare like the Medicaid program is. Insurance is a binding, legally enforceable contract for service between two parties. One party buys the service, the other party delivers the service. If we are going to encourage people to get long-term healthcare insurance, they must be able to trust that at a date certain somewhere in the distant future, if they need that service, if they need that coverage, the insurer will make good on that contract's promise. Anything else is a scam. This distinguishes between policies from other government sources of long-term healthcare financing, namely Medicaid, which can change at the discretion of the Congress or the States and, as we all know, frequently does. People must be able to count on their long-term healthcare insurance, yet we have read story after story and we will hear testimony today that sometimes the insurer fails to deliver to their customer. Some firms lowball their initial policy premium in order to sell them and then raise the rates so steeply that policyholders lose their coverage. They simply can't afford to pay for it. Or the insurer routinely uses prefabricated objections, fine print and intentionally convoluted policy provisions to deny the care that the people thought they were buying when they began to pay for their long-term healthcare policy years ago. Some people have complained about these problems and gotten help but many more people have simply been wronged and haven't done or don't know what to do about it. We should shine some light on these bad practices, and again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Shimkus, I am very, very pleased that you are doing this hearing today, to shine that light. If Congress is going to encourage growth of this market, we should make sure that the long-term healthcare insurance system really works like we intend it to and the people who buy it know they are going to get it when they need it. Bad practices, and we have some in the private sector here who are going to tell us that those bad practices are extremely rare. If that is the case, we need to take immediate action at the private level and at the State level to eliminate and punish those bad practices. Nobody wants to be the person who is swindled by a long-term healthcare policy. Insurers should be held accountable for their actions. We can rely on competition in the marketplace to make good companies with good practices the ultimate winners but it is also our job at the congressional level to protect the interests of the consumers. This is principally and properly done through State regulation. As I said earlier in my opening statement, we are very pleased to have several State insurance commissioners here before the subcommittee today. Yet I am told that the GAO will report today about the uneven regulatory oversight provided by the States. This is something that we need to work on and cooperate with the States to make sure that it is better. We should also identify what Congress can or should be doing to propel more-uniform consumer protection standards. Congress has already been encouraging long-term healthcare insurance for a number of years, most recently through certain provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act that was passed several years ago when I was chairman of this very full committee. Finally, we need to be aware of unintended consequences. Complexities of long-term healthcare insurance invite unintended consequences through the sort of over-regulation that reduces flexibility, innovation and consumer choice. We don't need to solve an old problem by creating a new problem. With that, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Shimkus. This is an important hearing and I am very, very appreciative that you are doing it. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Barton. Mr. Dingell for an opening statement, please. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, good morning. Thank you for holding today's hearing on this very important topic. This is a continuation of a long inquiry by this committee in the practices in the insurance industry serving our senior citizens. The need for long-term care may indeed be one of the most terrifying events confronting many older Americans and their families today. Nearly 10 million Americans will need long-term care services this year. By 2020, that number is expected to increase to 12 million, and it can only be anticipated that it will grow. According to some estimates, more than two-thirds of individuals aged 65 and older will require long-term care services at some point in their lives. The cost of long-term care could be catastrophic for Americans and for their families. Care in a nursing home for a year could cost tens of thousands of dollars a year and in some cases even more than that. Even care provided in one's own home can amount to hundreds of dollars per day and thousands of dollars per year. Because of these crushing costs, few Americans have sufficient resources to pay for long-term care for an extended period. Unfortunately, many middle-class Americans find themselves forced to become nearly destitute in order to qualify for Medicaid payments. As a result, our seriously strained Medicaid programs have already become a safety net not only for the poor but also for a middle class destituted by the costs. Private long-term care insurance cannot only play a critical role in relieving the financial burden on the government as well as the individual. Long-term care insurance pays for individuals to receive care in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and in their own homes. Policyholders generally pay for such insurance over a relatively long period starting when they are younger and healthier and collecting benefits later when they are less healthy and more financially vulnerable. This hearing will demonstrate that more Americans should consider such protections if they can afford to do so and qualify for coverage. However, we must ensure that they are protected from unscrupulous and unethical conduct by some insurance companies and their salespeople. Last year the New York Times published troubling results of an investigation into the practices of some long-term care insurance companies. The conclusion drawn from their research as well as other stories of insurance companies repeatedly raising their rates and unfairly denying claims is troubling. Equally disturbing are allegations of callous treatment by insurance companies of their policyholders who by definition are seriously disabled or cognitively impaired. Such behavior must stop, and I know that you and the members of this committee will join me in seeing to it that it does stop, even if we have to regulate this industry on the federal level to ensure that that happens. Clearly, we do not wish to tarnish the entire industry because of the bad acts of a few. I am certain that the majority of the companies providing long-term care insurance are doing so fairly and honorably. Likewise, I am certain that State regulators who are chiefly empowered with policing this industry are doing an excellent job in protecting their constituents. That said, the industry and the regulators must be held to the highest standard for this type of insurance product because its entire purpose is to serve the most vulnerable among us at the most vulnerable time in their lives. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, especially the Government Accountability Office personnel and the four insurance commissioners who will be testifying about their excellent investigations of the issues before us today. I look forward to their testimony and hearing from all of our other witnesses, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Burgess for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the recognition. I also want to thank our panelists and experts for being here today. It looks like we have assembled a great panel. I am looking forward to what they have to tell us. It is no great secret that we all age, and in fact recent polls have shown that a vast majority of Americans would rather age than accept the alternative. So we are going to continue to age. The 9 million Americans over 65 that may need some type of long-term care in the next year are a diverse group and, as such, they will benefit from a wide range of options. So we are here today to essentially answer two questions: do public programs and private insurers offer the type of coverage from which older Americans will benefit and is the market affordably meeting that need in a way that ensures adequate consumer protection? Does it deliver what it promises to deliver? We should keep in mind as we try to answer these questions that it is also important not to unnecessarily alarm or discourage consumers who are still trying to learn about long- term care insurance and whether long-term care insurance is a good investment for them and their family, and I use the word ``investment'' on purpose because I do think that long-term care insurance and the planning for long-term care insurance should factor in a family's overall financial planning. I think it actually has a place there. The country is growing in the number of seniors. It would appear the demand for long-term care insurance seems to be growing, and according to the National Association of Insurance Carriers, NAIC, in 2007 long-term care insurers paid out more than $4 billion in claims to policyholders. Furthermore, according to the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation at HHS, approximately 6 to 7 million individuals have long-term care policies. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I have a long-term care policy that I bought back when I was just a regular guy, long before I ever thought of running for Congress, and I did so for the reason most of us do the things we do in our lives that are correct, my mother told me to do it, and I can't take full credit for it because then my wife actually did the research and invited folks into our home to talk to us about it, and we purchased a policy with what was then GE Capital, which is now Genworth, and it is a premium that needs to be paid every year. We have just sort of factored that into our family finances, and as such, it provides a significant amount of protection and, I will just add, peace of mind because I am part of what is called the Sandwich Generation, where we end up taking care of parents on one end and children on the other, and while that is an obligation which I happily undertook, I also understand that not everyone is correctly set up to do that. There has been big growth in the market, and as a consequence, there have been some growing pains and I am hopeful today that we can learn from some of the past false starts and look forward to how the industry has matured and how States have responded to this growing consumer option, and Congress, in fact, this committee, has been proactive on this issue and it should be noted. In fact, I saw Earl Pomeroy come into the room. He is on the Ways and Means Committee and he and I worked very hard on an issue called long-term care partnerships, and we were able to get that language included in the Deficit Reduction Act that came through this committee back in 2005 and extend long-term care partnership programs to all 50 States, and the program has started in many States and it in fact has been very successful, and in fact, I am actively working on my guys in Texas to make sure that they understand this before their next legislative session. Furthermore, recently the Department of Health and Human Services has approved several Medicaid State plan amendments allowing States to establish partnership programs in their States. This program will have the dual benefit of promoting long-term care insurance and lessening the major cost driver facing State Medicaid programs, which is providing long-term care. The Medicaid Long-Term Care Insurance Partnership Program has certain consumer protections contained therein, and I also understand this has been a catalyst for States to adopt the National Association of Insurance Carriers models for some of their State laws. So the real issue for me is a matter of just knowledge of the products that are available. Instead of alarming and confusing the consumer about long-term care insurance, we should focus our efforts on education, education of the public as far as the need for long-term care insurance and what their options are. Many people are surprised to learn that Medicare doesn't include everything pertaining to long-term care and elderly Americans shouldn't have to rely on either impoverishing themselves or going through lengthy legal maneuvers that border on fraud in order to appear impoverished in order to receive Medicaid long-term care services. Long-term care insurance is again an investment and I believe should be part of the long-term financial planning for families just as we encourage them to do advance directives. I can think of no more loving gesture of a parent to their adult children than to adequately provide for their care if they become injured and disabled over a long period of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly look forward to the testimony of our panelists today, and I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Stupak. I thank the gentleman. It is good to recognize my friend and former state insurance commissioner from the State of North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, who has a great interest in this. In fact, didn't you try to do a model policy when you were state commissioner for long-term care for the nation? Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, in 1985, I was tasked by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to chair their first minimum standards committee for long-term care insurance. It was fascinating to me, and the hearing you will be having this morning, how some of those issues are still with us. Thank you very much for having this hearing and allowing me to observe and hear the testimony with you this morning. Mr. Stupak. I appreciate your presence here, and I know we have had an opportunity to talk, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, it has been 18 years since we have had a hearing on long-term care in this Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. So 18 years, and I know you came in with me 16 years ago, so it took us a while but we got here. Mr. Pomeroy. I might have been a witness at that hearing. I prefer this side of the dais, believe me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stupak. It is good to see you. Mr. Doyle, did you have an opening statement? Mr. Doyle. No, Mr. Chairman, I will waive. Mr. Stupak. I think that concludes opening statements of our members, so our first panel of witnesses has been seated. Let me introduce them: Ms. Bonnie Burns, who is a Training and Policy Specialist at California Health Advocates; Mr. Jack E. Vogelsong, who is the Chief of the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Division of Long-Term Living; Dr. Marc Cohen, who is the President of LifePlans Incorporated; Mr. John Dicken, who is the Director of the Health Care Division at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO; and Mr. Al Bode of Charles City, Iowa, who will be testifying here this morning also. So welcome to our witnesses. It is the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. Please be advised that you have a right under the Rules of the House to be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do any of you wish to be represented by counsel at this time? Everyone is nodding their heads no, so I will take that as a no. Therefore, I will ask you to please rise and raise your right hand to take the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Stupak. Let the record reflect that the witnesses replied in the affirmative. They are now under oath. We will begin with an opening statement. We will limit the opening statements to 5 minutes. If you have a longer statement for inclusion in the record, we will submit it in the record in its totality. So with that, we will start with you, Mrs. Burns, if you would begin with an opening statement. STATEMENT OF BONNIE BURNS, TRAINING AND POLICY SPECIALIST, CALIFORNIA HEALTH ADVOCATES Ms. Burns. Thank you, Chairman Stupak, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the Committee for inviting me to testify here today. It has been almost 20 years since I have been asked to speak about this topic before a congressional committee and I am very appreciative that Congress is taking a renewed interest in this subject. California Health Advocates is a nonprofit organization dedicated to education and advocacy efforts on behalf of California Medicare beneficiaries and their families. We provide training, technology support, and expert assistance to the California SHIP on a variety of topics including long-term care insurance. Long-term care is a completely unpredictable event. Consumers cannot easily predict in advance what is going to cause their need for care, what kind of care they need, whether they will require institutional care or whether they can be cared for at home. This uncertainty makes buying the right set of long-term care insurance benefits very difficult. Very little is known about how well this insurance works for those who purchase it or whether these products adequately address the personal goals of those who buy it and the public goal of offsetting Medicaid costs. Some consumers who bought a policy have been faced with staggering increases in premiums they promised to pay as illustrated by a 2007 request by one company for a 73 percent rate increase. It will take decades to discover if similar rate increase will occur on newer policies. We do know, however, that claims have been denied. Six policyholders or their families have contacted me about a denied claim within just the last 5 months, an unusual number in such a short period of time. One couple, Mr. and Mrs. M, paid $98,000 in premiums over the last 20 years for their Continental Casualty Company policies. The company refuses to honor the alternate plan of care for services needed by Mrs. M. The company insists that the alternate plan of care is completely at the option and discretion of the company, and Mr. M adamantly refuses to send his wife away to a nursing home where their benefits would most certainly be paid. Each of the individuals who contacted me had a different claims issue and provides a glimpse into the difficulties consumers have trying to claim benefits under a densely worded legal contract sold years earlier. Most insurance departments cannot help when there is a dispute about contract language, leaving the courts as the consumer's only resource. Much more work needs to be done to ensure that the static promises that consumers buy today from insurance companies are honored years or even decades later in an evolving marketplace for long-term care services. States that enter into partnership arrangements under the provisions of the DRA have additional duties and responsibilities to their residents. It will be years or even decades before States will see any effect on their Medicaid programs while companies and agents have an immediate marketing and sales opportunity under the sponsorship of State government. Insurance policies sanctioned by the State must be high-quality products sold by well-trained agents who have a basic understanding of the interaction between a State Medicaid program and a commercial insurance product and who can fairly represent a partnership product to an appropriate purchaser. Our written testimony includes much more detail on these issues and a number of suggestions for improving long-term care insurance including requiring notification by companies and agents of the availability of free counseling with local contact information for the federally funded CHIP programs and standardizing various elements of long-term care policies to limit consumer confusion. It would be irresponsible of States or the Federal Government to provide tax breaks and other taxpayer-funded incentives to buy a long-term care insurance product only to discover decades later that coverage is not available when needed and the impact on State programs is not achieved. It is also important to note that it should not depend on the State a person lives in whether or not they have a high-quality product. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important topic today and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee might have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Burns follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.018 Ms. Schakowsky [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Burns. Chairman Stupak had to briefly leave to testify at another committee and I will be chairing for the moment. Mr. Vogelsong. STATEMENT OF JACK E. VOGELSONG, CHIEF, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING, DIVISION OF LONG-TERM LIVING Mr. Vogelsong. Chairman Stupak, Congressman Barton, and Congressman Shimkus and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important issue of long-term care insurance and consumer protection. My name is Jack Vogelsong and I am currently the Chief of the Division of Long-term Living Public Education and Outreach of the Pennsylvania Department of Aging. When Governor Edward G. Rendell took office in 2003, he outlined several strategic priorities that would serve to guide his administration. One of these important priorities was to reform Pennsylvania's long-term living system. By the year 2020, one in four Pennsylvanians will be over the age of 60 and more than half of those individuals will need long-term living services at some point in their lifetime. When asked, 90 percent of our residents indicated that they would prefer to receive services in their homes and in their communities. In addition to the consumer preference, institutional care is nearly twice as expensive as providing services to an individual in their home and community. Despite these compelling facts, when Governor Rendell took office, 80 percent of long-term care was delivered in our institutional settings and only 20 percent of our services were provided in home and community-based services. The Rendell administration recognized therefore that balancing the long-term living delivery system to enable more individuals to remain in their home was both an ethically and fiscally responsible approach. To this end, the governor convened the Long Term Living Council. This council introduced a number of reforming issues including the creation of the new Division of Long-Term Living Public Education and Outreach. Our goal is to ensure that the residents of Pennsylvania know how to access our services and a major priority is to assist individuals to take appropriate planning action for the possibility of needing their own long- term care services at some time in their life. Prior to assuming this position, I served for over 12 years as the director of Pennsylvania's State Health Insurance Assistance Program, known as SHIP. In Pennsylvania, we are known as the APPRISE program. SHIPs provide information to consumers about the appropriateness of long-term care insurance and assist consumers in matching their projected financial goals with policies. Also, SHIPs are contacted when consumers have complaints. Our network is delivered through the 52 area agencies on aging and we have over 500 volunteers. Ninety-seven of those individuals have completed 3 days of training and have passed a certification exam specifically on long-term care insurance and other financial matters related to long-term living. Often, consumers have called upon me to evaluate their existing policies and to determine if their coverage matched their goals. In several cases, I was asked to intervene on consumers' behalf to obtain payment from the insurer when the consumer believed he or she was entitled to payment of claims or services received. As my role as the former SHIP director, my experience in claims processing problems, I generally served as interpreter between the consumer and the insurance company. There are a lot of language issues. People do not communicate. They do not understand. There are a variety of reasons why there are claims problems. Certain carriers have deliberately delayed strategies to make payment on legitimate claims by requiring repeated documentation. In some cases, caregivers only come to the knowledge that their parent or the person that they are caring for had a policy 6, 8 months after the person started receiving care and they have to backtrack and collect all the claims information and submit it to the insurer, and in many cases, we intervene with them in helping get that information from the provider. In most cases the claims were the result of the policy not providing reimbursement because the policyholder was not receiving services in the appropriate long-term care setting. If there is one single piece of advice that I can give a consumer with a claims issue it is to contact their state insurance department. In a recent survey for the Commonwealth, the Penn State Center for Survey Research telephone interviewed 2,630 individuals age 50 and older. The study surveyed these individuals to determine their current health status, involvement with needing long-term care services, insurance coverage and plans. Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Vogelsong, I just wanted to warn you, you have 48 seconds, so I wanted to make sure you can say what the most important things are in your testimony. Mr. Vogelsong. Thank you. Let me get to my recommendations then. We recommend that when an insurance agent sells a policy, that the out-of-pocket costs, the difference between what the policy pays and what the daily costs of a nursing home are be given to them in a dollar amount and not a percentage figure, that the elimination period or the deductible period also be given as a dollar amount and not a number of days. As long as the insurance industry pursues the public sector for tax incentives, we expect the insurance industry to act in the highest ethical standards and require that they enforce market contact of their independent agents. We also request that the insurance companies come to some standard of excellence. We all hear of the so-called good companies and the bad companies. We think the public should know who those good companies and bad companies are. We also recommend that Congress do two things. We participated in the Own Your Future campaign. Sixteen percent of the 1.6 million people in Pennsylvania that received a letter from Governor Rendell requested the planning kit. We think this is probably one of the most effective things the Federal Government can do is to continue to support that effort. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Vogelsong follows:] Statement of Jack Vogelsong Chairman Stupak, Congressman Barton, Congressman Shimkus, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important issues of long term care insurance and consumer protections. My name is Jack Vogelsong, Chief of the Division of the Long Term Living Public Education and Outreach, housed at the Pennsylvania Department of Aging. When Governor Edward G. Rendell took office in 2003, he outlined several strategic priorities that would serve to guide his administration. One of these important priorities was to reform Pennsylvania's long term living system. By the year 2020, one in four Pennsylvanians will be over the age of 60, and more than half of all individuals will need long term care at some point during their lifetime. When asked, nearly 90% of individuals indicate that they would prefer to receive long term care in their homes and communities rather than in an institutional setting. In addition to the issue of consumer preference, institutional care is nearly twice as expensive to provide as home and community based services. Despite these compelling facts, when the Governor took office, 80% of long term care was delivered in institutional settings, only 20% of long term care was provided in home, and community based settings. The Rendell administration recognized, therefore, that balancing the long term living system to enable more individuals to remain in their homes and communities was both the ethically and fiscally responsible approach. To this end, the Governor convened the Long Term Living Council, a cabinet- level body charged with creating a long term living strategic reform plan. The Council introduced a number of reform initiatives, including the creation of a new division of Long Term Living Public Education and Outreach housed in the Department of Aging. The division represents the Council's acknowledgment that, for its long term living reform initiatives to be successful, it is essential to raise public awareness about the availability of long term living services and the need to plan for one's long term living future. The division was created in March of 2008 signaling the administration's commitment to its long term living reform strategy. It targets individuals living with disabilities, older adults, their families, and loved ones and assists them to plan effectively and to navigate the complexities of the long term living system. Prior to assuming my current position, I served for over 12 years as the Director of Pennsylvania's State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), better known in Pennsylvania as the APPRISE. The availability of the SHIP Network to assist consumers is expressed in the National Association of Insurance Commissioners publication ``A Shopper's Guide to Long Term Care Insurance, The Department of Health and Human Services National Clearinghouse for Long term Care Information,'' and in most states, insurance agents are required to provide information to the consumer at the time of sale. SHIPs provide information to consumers about the appropriateness of long term care insurance and, if appropriate, assist consumers in matching their projected long term living needs and preferences with a policy. Also, SHIPs are contacted when consumers have complaints about claims processing and eligibility for benefits under their policy. In Pennsylvania, our APPRISE network includes staff in the 52 Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) and nearly 500 volunteers. As Pennsylvania's former SHIP director, I have personally counseled hundreds of people to determine the appropriateness of long term care insurance on a case-by-case basis. As part of this counseling, I assisted consumers in clarifying their financial goals for an insurance product and educated them on the long term care delivery system to ensure that the policy they selected would provide coverage consistent with their service preference, should they ever need those services. These decisions are challenging indeed for a consumer who, most likely, is decades away from the time during which they might need care. Often, consumers called on me to help them evaluate their existing policies and determine if their coverage matched their goals. In several cases, I was asked to intervene on the consumer's behalf to obtain payment from the insurer when the consumer believed he or she was entitled to payment of claims for services received. As the former SHIP director, my experiences with resolving claims issues on behalf of the policyholder have revealed the following:Certain carriers have employed strategies to delay payment of legitimate claims by asking for repeated documentation for services provided, and in one occasion refused to send the required claim forms to the policyholder. In some cases, a caregiver acting on behalf of the policyholder only became aware of the existence of the policy months after they began receiving services and had difficulty obtaining the required provider documentation to submit the claim. In most cases, the claims issues were a result of the policy not providing reimbursement because the policyholder was not receiving services in the appropriate long term care setting. If there were one single piece of advice that I can give a consumer with a claims issue it would be to contact their state Insurance Department for assistance. In a recent survey for the Commonwealth, the Penn State Center for Survey Research conducted 2,630 interviews with individuals age 50 and older. The study surveyed these individuals to determine their current health status, their involvement with people needing long term living services, income, education, insurance coverage, their plans and preparation for long term living services and their knowledge of services. To summarize these findings, the survey determined that the majority of people (56.7%) do not believe that they will ever need long term care services; most (94.1%) believed that Medicare would provide payment for their long term care services. Notably, 19% of the respondents said that they had private long term care insurance, even though the market penetration for long term care insurance in Pennsylvania is believed to be less than 8%. Of respondents who reported having long term care insurance, 44.8% did not know whether their policy included coverage for Adult Daily Living Services. Moreover, the vast majority (92.1%) of respondents said that they would prefer to remain in their own home and have family members involved with their care should they ever need services. In fact, 11% of the respondents indicated that they are providing long term living supportive services for an individual living in their home. The respondents providing support indicated that, in the prior week, they provided an average of 28.5 hours of care. Based on my experience, I believe that many consumers are ill prepared to make an informed decision to purchase long term care insurance that meets their financial goals and allows them to receive the types of services they prefer. What is Pennsylvania doing? We are enacting strong consumer protections through legislation. As I mentioned earlier, consumers lack the basic information on public and private funding options for long term living services. In addition they are unfamiliar with their probability of needing services, the cost and types of services that they would have available to them should they ever need care. Inaccurate and incomplete information prevents consumers from making informed decisions and makes them vulnerable to the actions of certain agents. We do not condone actions by agents that present half of the story and utilize scare tactics to create a sense of fear in individuals in order to sell long term care insurance. The notion of ``scare them, then sell them'' does not belong in the market place. The result is that consumers are sold policies that are often ill-suited to their financial and service needs. To safeguard consumers from these and other tactics on July 17, 2007, Governor Rendell signed into law Act 40 establishing the Long Term Care Partnership (LTCP). Act 40 contains strong consumer protections, including a requirement that makes it illegal to sell long term care policies that will pay claims only for nursing home care. Act 40 now requires that all long term care policies in Pennsylvania offer comprehensive coverage that allows consumers to choose the service delivery method - nursing home, home care or other similar care--that best meets their needs. Additional protections under Act 40 include: Insurance agents must complete a certified training, Minimum standards for inflation protection, the ability to exchange existing policies for Partnership Policies, and an increase in the guaranty fund of $300,000 to protect consumers against loss if an insurance company becomes insolvent (a significant improvement over the prior limit of $100,000 that likely covered less than 1.5 years of services). To date the Pennsylvania Insurance Department has approved partnership policies for five Long Term Care (LTC) companies and is working with other companies to approve additional policies. We are enacting strong consumer protections through responsive complaint investigations. The Pennsylvania Insurance Department relies heavily on complaint data, collaboration with other regulators and state agencies to drive their back-end regulatory functions and to develop legislative fixes when problems arise. A staff of experts that is sensitive to the needs of the consumer handles every complaint the Department receives. Complaints are used to develop action plans when problems arise and market conduct exams are utilized. For example, the Department recently collaborated with other state Insurance Departments to review the claims practices of the Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company. As a result, Conseco Senior Health developed stronger internal controls, replaced key management, implemented systems improvements, enhanced its employee training, and made other structural changes to benefit the policy holder. Similar market conduct exams are underway for other LTC insurance carriers. When a complaint is filed with the Insurance Department, every effort is made to expeditiously resolve it to the consumer's satisfaction. While the Department's Consumer Services Bureau and Consumer Liaison have conducted numerous public outreach events, including presentations to senior centers, more outreach is needed to ensure that consumers are aware of services available to them. The Pennsylvania Insurance Department has three regional Consumer Service offices focused on addressing the needs of insurance consumers. The Department's Office of Consumer Liaison developed training and outreach events focusing on the insurance needs of our citizens specifically targeting people interested in senior products such as long term care insurance. We are raising public awareness via ``Own Your Future''. On March 26, 2008, Governor Rendell launched the state's new ``Own Your Future'' campaign and urged Pennsylvanians to begin planning ahead to better meet their future long term care needs. The ``Own Your Future'' long term care awareness campaign is a joint federal-state initiative to increase awareness among the American public about the importance of planning for future long term care needs. Pennsylvania and Ohio were selected to participate in the campaign in 2008, joining 16 states that participated in previous rounds. As part of Pennsylvania's ``Own Your Future'' outreach effort, 1.6 million state residents ranging in age from 45 to 65 received letters from Governor Rendell encouraging them to order a free planning kit produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The kit offers information about planning for the future in areas including finances, legal services, and housing, health care and long term care insurance. Pennsylvania also contributed $1 million toward a comprehensive media buy to help supplement Governor Rendell's mailing. Included in the media buy were television and radio spots, along with internet and newspaper advertising. As of July 11, 2008, nearly 16% of the people who received Governor Rendell's letter have requested the ``Own Your Future'' planning kit. This is more than twice the expected response rate based on previous ``Own Your Future'' campaigns. Ohio's ``Own Your Future'' campaign has seen a similarly high response rate. We believe this trend reflects a growing interest by the American public in this issue. The time is right to promote education on long term living planning. While we were pleased to see the insurance industry redouble our efforts by actively participating in the ``Own Your Future'' campaign by mailings and other methods, we also noted practices that confused the public and steered them to a product that may not have been in their best interest. Pennsylvania has and will continue to report these instances to its Department of Insurance for investigation. We are raising public awareness via public events: The Pennsylvania Departments of Aging and Insurance will be sponsoring a series of information and assistance events across the Commonwealth to assist consumers to better prepare their future planning. These events will assist consumers to review their existing insurance coverage, examine their policy benefits and limitations, and become educated on the role of the Insurance Department in complaint resolution. The State SHIP program currently has 79 APPRISE counselors trained to assist individuals in the selection of long term care insurance. These counselors have completed a 3-day course and passed an exam. Counselors are required to attend annual recertification training and pass a recertification exam. These counselors will also host public seminars to educate consumers about financing options and dispel the myths that Medicare provides payment for long term care services. The Division of Long Term Living Public Education and Outreach will continue to build on the success of the ``Own Your Future'' campaign through public seminars, training of health care providers, development of publications and the expansion of the Commonwealth's long term living web site. The Division will also promote the expansion of home and community based services and programs that empower consumers to remain in their homes and receive support services through formal and informal caregivers. We will also encourage individuals to consider their housing options to ensure that their homes are conducive to their aging in place. In the survey recently conducted by the Penn State Center for Survey Research, nearly half of the respondents indicated that they lived in two or more story housing. Narrow hallways and doorways, steep stairs and the absence of safety features such as access ramps, grab bars, raised toilet seats, and levered door knobs can make it difficult to remain in their homes. Although in some cases modification can be made to the home, in other cases people will be encouraged to use lifestyle considerations including relocation to Continuing Care Communities as well as other housing options. We are raising public awareness via Web-based tools. In the fall of 2008, a web based decision tool will go live that will ask consumers a series of questions about their finances, health status, and personal care preferences. Based on their responses they will be provided written guidance for planning ahead, tips for selecting a long term care insurance policy, and private and public options to finance services. At this time, I would like to move into the recommendations portion of my testimony. Recommendations for States to Consider: 1. Insurance agents should be required to provide a written statement to consumers that discloses: a. The monthly out-of-pocket cost for nursing home care when selling a policy with a daily benefit of less than 80% of the average daily cost of nursing home care in the consumers' target market. b. The out-of-pocket costs borne by the consumer to meet the policy's deductible or elimination period. c. As the long term insurance industry pursues the public sector for tax incentives and the long term partnership, it should concurrently ensure that their agents perform to the highest ethical standards. 2. Enact safeguards in the long term care insurance market similar to the safeguards adopted in the Medicare Private Fee- for-Service market when marketing abuses arose there. These include: a. Hold insurers accountable for the market misconduct of their independent agents. b. Require that all market materials be reviewed and approved by the state Insurance Department. c. Require insurers or their agents to provide a schedule of their upcoming public information seminars to respective state insurance departments in advance of the events to enable investigators to monitor and ensure the accuracy of the information presented. 3. Afford State Insurance Departments adjudicatory authority for claims disputes that permit direct penalties for single violations rather than depending on a pattern of practice under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act. By providing single occurrences with fines of $5,000 per violation and $10,000 for each willful violation, cease and desist order license suspension or revocation, and restitution. Single incident fines would provide significant incentive for insurer to investigate the claim issues of their policyholder appropriately. 4. Require insurers to provide written claims payment information on a regular and periodic basis to their policyholders as they age and whenever policyholders contact the insurer seeking information when they become eligible for benefits. 5. Require that insurers uniformly advise their clients at the time a claim is denied or a policy cancelled that they have the option to contact their State Insurance Department to file a complaint. All claim disclosures should identify the Insurance Department as a claims resolution resource for the policyholder or his/her representative. 6. Require that the industry adopt uniform billing codes for long term care services to expedite the claims processing process. 7. Require the insurance industry to develop a standard of excellence in customer services. 8. Require the insurance carrier at the time they issue a policy to contact the policyholder to ascertain whether they were fairly and ethically treated by the agent and to determine the appropriateness of the product for them. 9. The industry should adopt performance measures to assure that policyholders fully understand the policy features. 10. The insurance industry should support consumer directed models that allow consumers to pay family members to provide care. While we recognize the hesitancy of the industry to adopt consumer directed approaches, this is an important approach in light of the projected workforce shortages in the long term living industry. 11. Congress and the Administration should continue to fund the ``Own Your Future'' campaign on the federal level, and, if possible, increase the speed that it engages additional states in the project. 12. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should be apportioned the resources to continue to train and support SHIP programs. Perhaps no other initiative has done more to ensure a uniform level of service and quality of providing individual assistance to consumers and unbiased information to consumers. Recommendations for Congress to consider: There may be a role for Congress to clarify provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act to improve consistent application of the DRA's Long Term Care Partnership program by the states. 1. Congress should define the levels of inflation protection, which are currently only generally described. 2. Congress could standardize producer training requirements to facilitate consistency among the states. 3. Finally, Congress could standardize the reciprocity requirements between and among states; such standardization would enhance the ``Own Your Future'' campaign efforts by making LTCP policies more portable. Conclusion: On behalf of Governor Edward G. Rendell and Secretary of Aging, Nora Dowd Eisenhower, I would like to thank the Committee, for inviting me to share Pennsylvania's experiences, remedies and recommendations on how to raise public awareness and protect our most vulnerable constituents. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time. ---------- Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Dr. Cohen. STATEMENT OF MARC COHEN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, LIFEPLANS, INC. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. I am Marc Cohen, President of LifePlans, a Boston-based long-term care research, consulting, and products offering company. Our company has been conducting research on issues related to long-term care financing and private insurance for over 20 years. I appreciate the opportunity today to testify in this important issue. Today I would like to present findings from more than a decade of research about how long-term care insurance is influencing the lives of claimants and their families and how companies are servicing claims. I want to acknowledge the support for these studies by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. My testimony will focus on three broad areas: one, the impact of private long-term care insurance on claimants and their families; two, how families evaluate their experience with the insurance company at the time that they file their claim; and three, industry-wide claim approval and denial rates. We conducted personal interviews with an industry-wide random sample of more than 2,500 policyholders making initial or ongoing claims on their long-term care insurance policies to address these areas. Here is what we found. First, the vast majority of new claimants indicated that policy benefits were meeting their care needs. Moreover, they did not feel that policy coverage definitions encumbered their choice of providers. In fact, more than 90 percent of claimants felt that the contract definitions provided the necessary flexibility to enable them to exercise their service choices. Second, the insurance pays a significant percentage of the daily costs of care, which in part explains why so many individuals were satisfied with their policy. More than 75 percent of claimants reported that their policies were paying for most of their care at any given point in time. One month of benefits, which can total $3,000 to $4,000, often exceeds a full year of premium costs. Third, having long-term care insurance allows disabled elders to remain in their homes and to delay or avoid using institutional services. When asked, about half of family caregivers and claimants who are receiving home care benefits felt that in the absence of their policy, they would have to seek institutional alternatives, would not be able to afford current service levels, would receive fewer hours of care and would have to rely more on family supports. Moreover, two- thirds of the family caregivers who were interviewed claimed that the presence of insurance-financed benefits has reduced caregiver stress. It has also enabled working caregivers to remain longer in the labor force. There have recently been a number of newspaper articles that have raised important questions about the claims payment practices of companies. As part of our broader research effort and prior to the publication of these studies, we explored these issues related to the interaction between the policyholder and their insurance company at claim time. Here is what we found. First, the majority of policyholders, 77 percent, did not find it difficult to file a claim. Those who found the process challenging reported that it took longer than expected to obtain benefits and that they had issues understanding and completing certain claims forms. Second, the vast majority of all individuals filing a claim, 94 percent, did not have any disagreements with their insurance company that were not resolved satisfactorily. This includes individuals who are approved for claim payment and those who were denied. There is controversy around the issue of claim denial rates. Until recently, there has been no independently provided empirical evidence to validate denial rates. Over a 2\1/2\-year period, we tracked 1,500 policyholders who had started or were just about to start using long-term care services. Here is what we found, and there is a slide available that summarizes this. Of those who filed an initial claim, 96 percent were approved and 4 percent were denied. Within 1 year, however, roughly half of these initial denials were approved for benefit payments. That means that the industry-wide adjusted denial rate over a 1-year period was actually closer to 2 percent. Most of those initially denied were not disabled enough to meet benefit eligibility triggers or had not met their policy elimination period or were using services not covered under their policy. In summary, the findings from these studies suggest that on an aggregate basis, policyholders are satisfied with their insurance at the time that they need it most, that policy benefits are helping people live independently in the community, that choice is not being limited, that the policies are benefiting family caregivers, that the interactions between policyholders and insurers is generally satisfactory, and that claim denial rates are less than 5 percent and diminish over time. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.185 Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Now we will hear from Mr. Dicken. STATEMENT OF JOHN E. DICKEN, DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE DIVISION, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Mr. Dicken. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shimkus and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today as the subcommittee discusses oversight of long-term care insurance. Nationally, public and private spending for long-term care exceeds $200 billion without about half of these expenditures paid for by Medicaid. Many individuals become eligible for Medicaid as a result of depleting their assets to pay for nursing home or other long-term care expenses that Medicare and private health insurance generally do not cover. A small share of long-term care expenditures, less than 10 percent, is paid by private insurance. As the number of elderly Americans continues to grow, particularly with the aging of the Baby Boom generation, the increasing demand for long-term care services will likely strain State and federal resources. Some policymakers have suggested that increasing the use of long-term care insurance may be a means of reducing the share of long-term care services financed by Medicaid. Effective oversight of long-term care insurance is key to fostering the consumer confidence necessary to encourage a larger role for long-term care insurance. My remarks today briefly highlight several key points from my written statement, which is based primarily on our recent report entitled ``Long-Term Care Insurance: Oversight of Rate Setting and Claims Settlement Practices.'' This report provides information from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as well as case studies of 10 States' oversight of rate setting and claims settlement practices. As you know, oversight of long-term care insurance is primarily a State responsibility. We found that many States have made efforts to improve oversight of rate setting, though some consumers remain more likely to experience rate increases than others. NAIC estimates that since 2000, more than half of States have adopted new rate-setting standards. States have adopted new standards generally moved from a single standard that was intended to prevent premium rates from being set too high to more comprehensive standards intended to enhance rate stability and provide other protections for consumers. Regulators in most of the 10 States we reviewed said that they think these more comprehensive standards will be effective but that more time is needed to know how well the standards will work. Although a growing number of consumers will be protected by the more comprehensive standards going forward, many consumers have policies not protected by these standards. This is because the consumers live in States that have not adopted the new standards or because they bought policies issued prior to the implementation of these standards. Further, consumers' likelihood of experiencing a rate increase also may depend on the company from which they bought their policy. We identified examples of companies that had increased premiums multiple times with increases ranging from 30 to 70 percent. In contrast, other companies had fewer and more modest premium increases. Also, consumers in some states may be more likely to experience rate increases than those in other States. For example, for one policy, a company requested a 50 percent increase in 46 States including the District of Columbia. One- quarter of these States either did not approve the increase or approved less than the 50 percent requested. The remaining States approved the full amount requested, though some States phased in the increase over multiple years. Let me turn to another focus of State oversight, insurers' claim settlement practices. Regulators in the 10 States we reviewed oversee claim settlement practices by monitoring consumer complaints and also conducting examinations in an effort to ensure that companies are complying with claim settlement standards. These standards largely focus on timely investigation and payment of claims and prompt communication with consumers but the standards adopted and how States define timeliness vary. Some States are considering adopting additional protections related to claim settlement. For example, regulators in several States said that their States were considering an independent review process for consumers appealing claims denials. Regulators indicated that such an additional protection may be useful as they lack authority to resolve complaints where, for example, the company and consumer disagree on a factual matter. In closing, despite State oversight efforts, some consumers remain more likely to experience rate increases than others. Consumers may face more risk of a rate increase, depending on when they purchase their policy, from which company their policy was purchased and which State is reviewing a proposed rate increase. Further, as long-term care insurance policies mature and consumers increasingly begin claiming benefits, regulators expect the number of complaints regarding claim settlement practices could increase. Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dicken follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.053 Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Mr. Bode. Is it Bode or Bode? Mr. Bode. Bode. STATEMENT OF AL BODE, CHARLES CITY, IOWA Mr. Bode. My name is Al Bode and I am a retired Spanish teacher from Charles City, Iowa. I am the son of someone who resided in an assisted living facility and is currently in a nursing home. I would like to thank Chairman Stupak, Ranking Member Shimkus, Acting Chair Schakowsky, and the Committee for this opportunity to speak to you regarding my mom's experiences. My parents, Floyd and Marjorie Bode, retired from farming in the mid-1980s. Dad felt that he and Mom should not burden their five children in terms of future care and purchased assisted living/nursing home insurance through Conseco. He faithfully paid the ever-rising premiums but died in September 2006 without ever using the insurance. However, Mom, through her guardian, my sister, Jan Christensen, continued to make the payments and live in her own home. Mom fell and hit her head on the left side in August 2006. She was hospitalized, and it became apparent that she had received a severe injury. My sister, a career nurse of more than 40 years, took her back to her home in Iowa City. Mom was evaluated at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and her diagnosis included the fact that her distal common carotid artery on the left side was completely blocked. It is the left side that affects short-term memory. The Conseco agent that my sister contacted went over the three areas that Mom would need to qualify for assisted living and said she would have to have dementia, that is, cognitive impairment, be unable to do two or more ADLs, activities of daily living, or that being there would be medically necessary. It was clear that Mom would need continual monitoring at Huskamp Haven, an assisted living facility in Algona, Iowa. Mom was evaluated and judged to be suffering from cognitive impairment by doctors and specialists in Iowa City and Algona. In December, Conseco told my sister they had denied the claim for Mom for medically necessary reasons or not being able to do her own activities of daily living. They told her they were still working on the cognitive impairment reason. Realize that poor treatment of elderly by insurance companies also affects their families if they are lucky enough to still have family around. My sister was diagnosed with follicular non- Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer in 2003 and had to be as much concerned with her own battle to go on living as with the care of her mom. She would be here today to share her travails with you first hand were it not for an impending stem cell transplant treatment that will hopefully prolong her life. For the next 6 months, my sister and my cousin, Ann, an attorney in California, received excuse after excuse for not honoring the judgment of various doctors regarding Mom and spending literally hours on hold in calls to Conseco. It was unnecessary elder abuse to force Mom to continue to endure numerous tests for dementia. We felt there was no choice but to ask an attorney to file a lawsuit in order to receive the benefits due our mom. In June 2007, word came that Conseco would refund over-collected premiums, almost 5 months after doing so, and begin paying back bills, coincidentally or not, around the time we filed the lawsuit. Sporadic payments were then followed by unexplained lapses. The lawsuit was settled this spring, which ensures Mom's bills will continue to be paid and paid on time. It took over 20 months to get to this point. Mom has five college-educated children who banded together to come to her aid. We have all learned that her situation is sadly all too frequent and not the exception. We are concerned as well for those who continue to be denied benefits without even an explanation from their company and for those whose mental or physical condition renders their ability to communicate with their company impossible. We are especially concerned for those who lack my mom's resources in terms of family and financial support and for whom assisted living will never be a reality. We appreciate this opportunity to address concerns on behalf of this Nation's most vulnerable population. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Bode follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.070 Mr. Stupak. Thank you. That completes the opening statements. We will go to questions. We are going to go for 5 minutes and we will try to move this along. Let me apologize to this panel. I had to run up and testify at the Resources Committee on a matter before my district of great importance on a national marine sanctuary, so I ask for your forgiveness for being a little bit late in returning and missing some of your statements, but we have read them and I do have a few questions. Ms. Burns, since I started with you with opening, I am going to ask you the first question. You noted in your testimony that premium rate increases may be particularly devastating for people. Are there particular companies that you have noticed to have been worse than others in calling for these increases? Ms. Burns. There have been a number of companies that have had rate increase and cumulative rate increases but the two companies that come to mind who have been the most prominent have been Conseco and Penn Treaty. Mr. Stupak. Why do you think that these companies had difficulties with their rates, trying to establish a rate that is fair to the consumer and the company? Ms. Burns. Well, I think that you have to recognize that there was and still is a lot of competition in the long-term care insurance marketplace. I think some companies may have underpriced their policies in an effort to gain market share, and in other cases, companies may not have had the data that they needed to accurately price policies. But in the 1980s and 1990s, there was a great deal of competition based on price, and today, most competition still is based on price because it is so difficult for consumers to compare these products. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Vogelsong, if I may, as you know, the Penn Treaty American Corporation is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Our committee staff has learned that Pennsylvania is currently undertaking a--I am going to quote now--``market conduct examination'' of Penn Treaty. How would you summarize your personal experiences interacting either with the policyholders from Penn Treaty or with the company itself? Mr. Vogelsong. Well, Penn Treaty has the highest number of claims complaints in Pennsylvania. They represent probably 30 to 40 percent of the claims complaints that the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance receives, and we receive numerous complaints from consumers. Mr. Stupak. Just in the area of long-term care or you mean of all? Mr. Vogelsong. Yes, long-term care. Mr. Stupak. But Pennsylvania is one of the lead States in directing the market conduct examination, an interstate settlement agreement with Conseco. What have been your personal experiences in interacting with either the policyholders from Conseco or the company itself? Mr. Vogelsong. Well, Conseco certainly was probably one of the few cases that I as an intermediary had to refer to the Insurance Department. The individual that we had contact us wanted to file a claim under a policy for her mother and they refused to actually send a claim form. So it was considered an inquiry, so we had to actually find an agent that had a copy of it to submit it, and then when the claim was denied, then filed the complaint. Mr. Stupak. So with the policy you don't get a claim form as a general rule, I take it? Mr. Vogelsong. No. One of the recommendations I have is that there is more explanation and regular communication with policyholders throughout the term of the policy on how to file claims and what their rights are. That should be done on a regular and frequent basis. Mr. Stupak. Dr. Cohen, you noted that buyers of long-term care insurance are getting younger on average. Surely this trend indicates success for both the industry and for public policy. What would you say are the primary sources of this success? Are people just more aware of the needs or---- Mr. Cohen. I think people are more aware of the needs. I think that over the last decade, if you look at trends in product, the products are far more attractive than they were in the past. For example, there has been reference made to how confusing products are. Ten years ago, we did a survey that showed that half of the--50 percent of the people who chose not to buy long-term care insurance said that it was just too confusing. In 2005, that number had fallen to 14 percent. So I think there is much better knowledge, better products for consumers to choose from. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Dicken, if I can ask you, in your written testimony, you noted that two of the companies in your study have substantially increased the premiums in the past 10 to 20 years. One company has requested many rate increases of 30 to 50 percent while another company requested an increase on one policy form totaling 70 percent. Would you say that these increases are usual or unusual in the industry? Do these companies stand out or are they sort of the norm within the industry? Mr. Dicken. I think our statement noted that there were different practices we saw across the industry where there were a number of companies, and what we heard from regulators is mostly companies that had sold older, closed books of business that were no longer being marketed that were facing these higher premium increases of 30 or 50 or 70 percent. Mr. Stupak. Is this sort of the norm or is it just more of the old policies coming up and trying to modernize them? Is that where you are seeing these big increase requests? Mr. Dicken. I wouldn't say it is the norm. I think we have seen multiple companies with these older policies that have had increases but it certainly varied across companies. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Bode, if I may, a couple quick questions for you. Thanks for being here and sharing the experience of your family as one of the examples of how the system is broken. Ultimately, your family was able to obtain a satisfactory settlement from Conseco, I take it, and if you had not had a strong family network, you mentioned family, that all have degrees, and supporting your mother; do you think she would have been able to successfully deal with the company? Mr. Bode. There is no doubt in our mind that she would never have been able to have solved the riddle with Conseco. Remember, she had dementia, she had cognitive impairment. There is no way that she knew what her insurance policy offered her. There is no way that she could have begun to communicate with Conseco, and given the corporate, what we perceive as the corporate model for Conseco of waiting on the phone for 20 to 40 minutes, you can't ask an 89-year-old woman to wait on the phone for 20 to 40 minutes, promises to call back that were broken time and time again, the multiple requests for the same information. She had to go through at least five different examinations to prove she was cognitively impaired. Would she have been able to do that without family? No. Mr. Stupak. Well, you said cognitive impairment, then yet in your testimony you said at one point that Conseco relied on the tests of a mini-mental test rather than the diagnosis of your mother's physician. What difficulties did the use of this test create in trying to get reimbursed for---- Mr. Bode. The mini-mental test was simply a test that was given to her at the assisted living in which she was assisted by the nurse in her answers so it was even a false test to begin with, and they referred to that early on, but beyond that, they seemed to never receive the doctor's testimony, et cetera, and kept losing it, and it was constantly talking to different people. My cousin, the attorney, asked several times for the name of the most senior person in the claims department, never got a response. She also asked who made the final decision to deny the claim. No response. She asked who reviewed the appeal and again they denied the claim. No response. And we are talking over a 3- to 4-month period. We had to file a lawsuit, and this was beyond what my sister had tried to do. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus for questions. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bode, thank you for being here. I would like to start with you and just follow up on the chairman. The timeline in your written testimony, there is a lengthy timeline which we all are very frustrated with, in which you waited 45 business days to see if the original claim had been accepted. After that, the wait was an additional 20 business days to review your appeal, and then a month later when Conseco finally acknowledged receipt of your appeal, it noted that it would take an additional 20 to 30 business days before you would have a response. What do you believe was the reason for this delay? Mr. Bode. Well, first of all, we felt that those delays, the amount of time, were arbitrary and were being made up as they went along because they were never voiced in advance. For example, my sister filed in October. She asked in December and then they said well, there is a 45-day wait. Now she has to wait until January without recourse, more calls, being put on hold, more denials. Mr. Shimkus. This whole insurance debate--insurance is regulated and granted authority by the State. There is always a debate of what the federal role is. I was visiting with constituents on Monday and one constituent was pretty upset when they called a federal agency and let the phone ring 52 times until they hung up. And we all have that. We all do those constituent service issues whether it is Medicare or Medicaid, Social Security disability issues, and we act as the SHIP guy or--did you ever in this time frame, tell me what was the response to an appeal to the State insurance commission. Mr. Bode. OK. We did appeal to the State insurance commission and we got a response back. The response was, they denied the claim. We knew that. We knew they denied the claim. Wasn't that a heck of a good response? Mr. Shimkus. So they didn't actively say we need to hear your case, we need to do due diligence and fight on your behalf? Mr. Bode. Iowa is the only State in this Nation that lacks a private cause of action for consumer fraud with regard to insurance. We are the only one, OK? So Conseco has chosen to make this runaround a part of their business model because if they can make it hard enough to get a claim paid, they won't have to pay as many claims. There is no consequence for doing so in Iowa. Mr. Shimkus. So you are pretty confident that they didn't give you any assistance? Mr. Bode. Yes. Mr. Shimkus. Did you follow up with the State SHIP at all? Mr. Bode. At that point, no. We weren't aware of SHIP, and in fact, we felt the best route was to go through our cousin, an attorney, because we felt that we needed some sort of legal guidance on this, and when she couldn't do it, well, you know. The five of us plus an attorney, what are we going to do? Mr. Shimkus. Let me go, because I have the Illinois SHIP thing here, and my first real experience was when we passed Medicare D and I used SHIP a lot to help educate. I wanted to be on the front of this change. They were very helpful, the area agency on aging. What I found in this process was that before I got involved with Medicare D, there was really no--the agencies set up to deal with senior issues didn't really know each other and didn't really communicate as much, from my perspective, once we passed Medicare D because seniors were going to all these different places and these agencies initially had to start talking to each other, and we relied on them in my congressional office. After time I had an event, I had a SHIP person present and the local area agency on aging was also supportive, and I sing their praises. Mr. Vogelsong, had this happened in Pennsylvania and Mr. Bode would have come to you, how would you have--what would the Pennsylvania SHIP have done? Mr. Vogelsong. Well, in terms of an advocate, I can't do a regulatory but what we try to do is begin a very clear tracking of it so that if you do have to take a formal complaint, you have documented things, and I am sure Mr. Bode did that. It would then be referred to the insurance department for action. Currently, Pennsylvania is looking at action of applying existing law that they could have enforced this. We would have tracked it to see if we could resolve it, built the case and documented the steps taken and then referred to the insurance department. Mr. Shimkus. And my last question is to segue to Dr. Cohen, a very compelling testimony. No one wants to have our family members who entered into a contractual agreement to have services paid for based upon an insurance product. I don't want my parents to have to go through that. I don't want to put the burden on my children. But Mr. Bode in essence stated that his is more the rule, not the exception. I think your testimony on your research would be the counterargument. Mr. Cohen. Right. As you say, that is a very difficult situation. I think he questioned is that representative of the industry as a whole, and at least the empirical research that we have conducted suggests that it is not at all, and Ms. Burns talked about the fact that within the last, I think, 6 months, she herself has had six people contact her. Probably over that time period, there have been 35,000 to 40,000 new claims opening. The question is, when you take it in the aggregate, what is a reasonable or what is a large number or a small number? When I make the statement that in fact 94 percent of all people don't have disagreements that aren't resolved satisfactorily or 97 percent of all claimants, how do we view that? I suppose if I took a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries or Medicaid beneficiaries and was before the committee and said 94 percent of the people were satisfied, what would the response be? Would people think that that is a pretty good thing or not? And clearly I think there is a lot of additional work that can be done. My guess is, if you ask the third panel about where some of the largest investments that they are currently making right now in the running of their own businesses, they are probably going to point to investments in new claim systems, management approaches and so on. Mr. Shimkus. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Doyle for questions, please. Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all the panelists. Mr. Vogelsong, welcome. Mr. Vogelsong, I applaud Pennsylvania for its efforts to find ways for more people to receive long-term care services in their own homes. In your opinion, what have been some of the barriers that have kept people from making that transition in the past and how are you in Pennsylvania attempting to overcome those barriers? Mr. Vogelsong. In part, Pennsylvania, as you are aware, has a large rural population, and one of the transitions requires that you be able to provide a broad range of home- and community-based services, and sometimes those service delivery systems just not have developed. So for example, adult daycare services, that is one of the initiatives, to begin opening and providing for adult daycare and bringing things in. Part of it has been with the payment system, so we are initiating several new programs that would make it easier for the consumer to access those services. Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Also, in your personal counseling of people who are considering buying long-term care insurance, tell me, what have been some of the biggest concerns that people have had and what have been some of the biggest misunderstandings that people have had when they want to do this? Mr. Vogelsong. One of the biggest misunderstandings, and we just did a survey and we had similar results, is that 90 percent of the people believe Medicare pays for their long-term care, and if they have that perception, they are not going to play at all. They think they are taken care of. Surprisingly, 20 percent of the people in that survey indicated that they believe they already had private long-term care insurance. We know the market penetration is closer to 8 percent or 7 percent. And there is a lot of misunderstanding in around the cost. Some of the cases that are brought up that are extremely--there is a sense of distrust. I think the industry really needs to set up some sort of standards so that people develop more of a confidence in the industry and that should be far more transparent to the public. Mr. Doyle. Is there an easy way for families that are considering purchasing long-term care insurance to go online and compare companies and policy definitions, to make sure they are looking at apples-to-apples kind of coverage and then look at the cost of the policies? Is there some way that makes it easier for consumers to do that when they are shopping? Mr. Vogelsong. Well, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department has the rates filed. We are currently in the development of a Web site where we ask a whole host of questions and then they get a personalized response relating to the cost of care in their area, benefit features based on personal preferences about their care. We simplified it in Pennsylvania. The governor has required now that all long-term care insurance policies in Pennsylvania are comprehensive policies, providing for both nursing home care and home care. That is the only kind of policy that can now be sold in Pennsylvania. Mr. Doyle. And I am curious, typically on the average, how much are we talking about when a family starts to shop on long- term care insurance, what kind of number are you looking at just on the average? Mr. Vogelsong. It varies according to your age. A 50-year- old probably could find a comprehensive product with a 3-year benefit period for probably about $1,200 to $1,500. It seems to go about---- Mr. Doyle. Annually? Mr. Vogelsong. Annually. It seems to go up for the next 15 years in 5-year increments of another $500 for every 5 years you get older. So by the time you are 70, you are looking at an extremely expensive product. Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am done. Thanks. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Mr. Murphy for questions, please. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Vogelsong. I have a question in the process of dealing with consumer issues, which may have to do with coverage and denial of benefits, et cetera, but I want to get into something also about the rate increase issue because that is an area that I have concerns about or that I hear about where someone signs up for a plan, signs up when he is 40-some years old, paying certain rates and now is seeing huge jumps, saying that he belongs to a class of people which are getting older, which amazes me that someone didn't figure that out when he was signing up for long-term care insurance and one day he might get older or than a whole class of people born as Baby Boomers might get older, and yet I have to wonder that perhaps that was part of the thought all along to sell someone something cheap and then later on, oh, we just discovered you are in a class of people that ages with time. Now, I am thinking here, when insurance works, it really is a wonderful thing. It really is a bright light in the darkness for someone who has it. But when it fails, it is a nightmare for families, as talked about today by one of our panelists here. Now, I am wondering what can be done for consumers when they are finding themselves in a class of people that suddenly has rate increases, and as these things go on, as what you are seeing in Pennsylvania, and I open this up to other panelists as well, as we are seeing this, as the rate increase come up, do we find people who find themselves suddenly in a class of people who can no longer afford the long-term care health insurance that they bought early on, and therefore are out of it and now are in a class of people who have funded long-term care insurance that they never can obtain? Mr. Vogelsong. Let me just comment on two things. I think there are provisions, new provisions that allow people to go into a different class of a policy or transfer within the company. What we are starting to see and have started to see a lot of people beginning to inquire about dropping their policy because they are severely impacted because of their high cost of energy, they are on a fixed income. This is discretionary. They are seeing their heating bills go last year from $1,200 to $2,600 a year. They are looking at dropping their policies. So we will be traveling across the State this fall to meet with policyholders to go over a whole host of issues about what they can do instead of just totally dropping the policy and reconfiguring. But I think Bonnie is probably more familiar with the NAIC standards in terms of the book of business of the class of business and---- Ms. Burns. Yes. In California about 8 or 9 years ago we enacted a reform that would allow a policyholder to go to the company and negotiate a lower premium, both following a rate increase or when their own personal circumstances might mean they would have to drop the policy. And so we enacted that reform some time ago. We call it buying down the benefits if they have the benefits to buy down. If they have a 1- or a 2- year policy, there may not be anywhere for them to go. The NAIC enacted that same provision within the last few years. But there have been class action lawsuits based on some of these increases, and as a result, the settlement in those class actions have sometimes allowed consumers to keep benefits equal to the premiums that they have paid the company and then lapse their policy. And there are some issues around that, but those are two ways in which people could retain some residual benefits and either have a lower premium or no premium. And so those are some ways to help people who are faced with one of those rate increases. Mr. Murphy. When States review these insurance rates, my assumption would be that the States would have looked at long ago the anticipation that as people age that they would be more likely to use their long-term care insurance. Was there some slipup in the States reviewing these rate increases, the rate, the initial rates 10, 20 years ago that contributed to this? Ms. Burns. I think maybe that assumes some facts not in evidence, because States have varying authority over rate setting. Whether or not they even have the right to review rates, how those rates are approved, it varies across the States, and not every State has an actuary on their staff or has actuaries who are knowledgeable about long-term care insurance. Mr. Murphy. You are saying the States may not have that? Ms. Burns. And so States may not have those kinds of resources, and since we are looking at rate increases on some of these older policies, that might have even been more true in the 1980s. Mr. Murphy. A few seconds. Dr. Cohen, can you comment on this, too, with regard to, as you report some high satisfaction rates, but when it comes to some of these issues of rate increases, are there some analyses that you know of that---- Mr. Cohen. Well, we looked primarily at claimants but I do want to clarify one issue. When long-term care insurance companies price policies, they price them to be level funded, meaning that if you buy them at age 70, the expectation is that the premium will remain level throughout your lifetime. So it is not true that the policies are priced or states have slipped up and all of a sudden every year the premium goes up. If it turns out to be the case that some of the underlying assumptions that were made in the pricing of those policies were incorrect and the premium is deficient, then a company will come in and ask for a rate increase. Now, on the issue of empirical research, we haven't delved into that issue very much, but with a number of companies we looked at what happened when rate increases were put into effect. One of the surprising things, and this may relate to the fact that companies are making some offers to individuals, is that few people ended up dropping their policies. There was an expectation that if you raised the rates, all of a sudden you would have a lot of people just not being able to afford it, but I think that there are some mechanisms that have already been put in place that enable people to keep some level of their coverage. And so you don't see those high lapse rates. Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that may be something we might want to follow up on in the future. No more questions. Thank you. Mr. Stupak. We are going to go another round here. I know Ms. Schakowsky is trying to come down. She was in a hearing, and she is on her way down. But let me ask a couple questions before she gets here. Ms. Burns, you listened to Dr. Cohen's testimony and even some of the answers to Mr. Shimkus, which I thought were some good questions there, that the overwhelming majority of long- term care claimants report being satisfied with their policy. In light of these findings why should we, Congress, believe that consumer protection for this product is an important public policy question? Ms. Burns. Well, even if only 6 percent are unsatisfied, that is a very large number of people across the spectrum of the policies that are in force. And I would also like to comment on the satisfaction---- Mr. Stupak. Right. Ms. Burns [continuing]. Versus dissatisfaction. Some companies are able to explain to people why they are not paying a claim in a way that satisfies the person as to why that claim isn't being paid. And in my testimony I identified the six people who have contacted me very recently, but those are the people whose claims I was unable to get the companies to reconsider. That does not include all of the people for whom I have been able to resolve their particular issue by going to the company and asking them to reconsider their position. And much of the dispute around claims is within the details of the language of the policy. It is not so simple as---- Mr. Stupak. Right. Ms. Burns [continuing]. I get $160 a day or not. It has to do with how a company is interpreting the provisions of that particular product. Mr. Stupak. Sure. And that all states, and not all policies are uniform or the same, and you have these market differences. So is it market differences, or is there a real failure that you are to protect the consumer? Ms. Burns. Well, I think that the NAIC model has set some minimum standards---- Mr. Stupak. Right. Ms. Burns [continuing]. Which some states haven't adopted. But those are minimums, and some states like ours have gone beyond it in certain ways. But there are details within those policies that the NAIC model does not deal with, one of which is what is the definition of a person's home. If you have a benefit to pay home care, and you are not living in your own home, but you are living---- Mr. Stupak. Right. Ms. Burns [continuing]. In the home of another person, will a company pay benefits there? Mr. Stupak. OK. Well, like Mr. Bode's experience when he contacted the State Insurance Commissioner, it is like in a lot of things that we deal with insurance in this Committee, it almost seems like it is the quality or the ability of the Insurance Commissioner Office, every state is a little different, some are appointed, some are elected. I know we have the later panel up, but I am sure who is driving the regulatory of the insurance industry in that state probably has a lot to do with what kind of response you receive. Ms. Burns. Well, in California our Insurance Commissioner has no authority with a disputed claim. If there is a dispute between the company and the insured person about the payment of a claim, our Commissioner has no authority to make the company pay that claim or to even investigate that claim. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Dicken, let me ask you this question. You noted that the regulation of long-term care insurance is largely the province of the states. How much of a difference do you think that HIPAA that I mentioned in my earlier, in my opening statement, and the Medicaid Long-Term Care Partnership have had on the regulatory standards in these states? In other words, are states following up on it, going through with it? Mr. Dicken. Sure. At this point most of the new long-term care insurance policies sold, probably about 90 percent, are now tax qualified with meeting the HIPAA provisions. I think one of the newer developments is that many states are now looking into the partnership programs, and DRA did require that those require certain of the NAIC model standards, including some but not all of the standards on rate setting. So when we looked at about 24 states that had expressed interest in partnership programs, seven of those had not yet adopted some of those additional standards that would now be required for partnership policies. Mr. Stupak. OK. Well, thanks. Ms. Schakowsky is here and ready for questions. Let me turn it to her for questions, please. Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. There is a couple of hearings going on at the same time, and that is why I have been dashing from one to another. I apologize upfront if the question has already been asked, and my staff can then just tell me that. My staff will fill me in. I wanted to ask Mr. Vogelsong, it is my understanding that some companies market door-to-door. Do you allow that in Pennsylvania? Mr. Vogelsong. Yes. They are allowed door-to-door, but it is certainly discouraged. There are marketing guidelines, but there is nothing stopping an agent from making cold calls. Ms. Schakowsky. Can you give us an example of a marketing regulation that would protect consumers that you do have? Mr. Vogelsong. Insurance, an agent that sells insurance needs to identify themselves as an agent. They can't talk about themselves as solely being a certified senior advisor or some other term. When they are doing business as an agent they need to identify themselves as agents, and I think that is where we certainly run into problems. The consumer views them as a kind of a helping person and trusted person, but the person is really functioning as an insurance agent, trying to---- Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask Ms. Burns. What do you think about door-to-door marketing? Ms. Burns. Well, that certainly does go on, as well as what are called cold leads. You know, those cards that fall out of a lot of publications, if you want more information, send us your name and address and somebody will contact you. And that is one way that agents get people's names and addresses and show up at the door. Ms. Schakowsky. No. I understand, but I wouldn't show up at the door, but that is because someone has requested that information. There are a number of product lines for the elderly where actually door-to-door solicitation, that kind of thing is not allowed, and I am wondering if you think, have found any problems with door-to-door solicitation of insurance, unsolicited ones. Ms. Burns. Oh, yes, and I think most of the states that would be true. I think the only place that that is prohibited is in, with the new MA plans. Ms. Schakowsky. Where it is prohibited? Ms. Burns. With the Medicare Advantage regulations would prohibit door-to-door solicitation. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, because it does happen. Ms. Schakowsky. I know. I am trying to understand if you think that that is a legitimate way then for long-term care insurance companies to sell their product. Ms. Burns. No. I don't. Ms. Schakowsky. But Mr. Vogelsong, it is permitted in---- Mr. Vogelsong. There is no prohibition against it. It is, but it generally probably wasteful time for an agent because of the expense of the product, but you could be assured that if somebody does that, they are probably not somebody you want to buy from. Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to ask you, Ms. Burns, is the NAIC standard of 30-day right to return with full refund an adequate standard in your view? Ms. Burns. Yes, it is. I think it needs clarification because often the 30 days--an agent will tell a person that the 30 days started the day the agent came to their door, when, in fact, the 30 days is meant to apply at the time that the person receives their policy and is able to review it. So I think there are some improvements that could be made in that particular protection. Ms. Schakowsky. One more question for you, Ms. Burns. I assume that you agree that not every person should buy long- term care insurance based on their own financial situation, and are we doing a good enough job not just in giving consumers information on the policies themselves, but why or why not buying a policy may be right for them? Ms. Burns. Well, I think we could do a lot more on suitability standards. The NAIC has a personal worksheet that people are supposed to get as part of the solicitation, which is supposed to be used to identify people who would not be appropriate purchasers to the company. And I think that, while that is a very good effort on the part of the NAIC, there is certainly some improvement that could be made in how those standards apply, what standards companies use, and how they enforce that. Because I have certainly seen cases in which that personal worksheet was nowhere in the papers the person had. They never saw it, never filled it out. I have seen cases of people on Medicaid who have been sold a long-term care policy and presumably the company should have had a copy of that personal worksheet with the data that would have alerted them to the fact that they were not an appropriate purchaser. Ms. Schakowsky. I see. Thank you very much. Thank you for your advocacy. Ms. Burns. Thank you. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Shimkus, did you have some follow-up questions before we move along? Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The, we have already kind of connected the dots based upon the jurisdiction debate, and we are involved in HIPAA, which has some connections to this debate. We have the long-term care partnership through the DRA that connects us to this debate, the NAIC standards which follow. We are making an initial assumption that that is, NAIC standards help, I think, but in-- Mr. Dicken, in your report on page 35, we note that Texas and New York haven't fully implemented the NAIC standards, but they have fewer than 100 complaints in 2006, where my State, Illinois, and Florida have implemented, and they have over 100 complaints. So can you, what do you draw from that analysis? Mr. Dicken. Well, I think it is difficult to look at trends in complaints, that many times complaints in states that there may be relatively few on a product line, some that may be fewer than 100, some of that was data that we had received and in trying to select some of the states to look at at different experiences. What we have seen from complaints from five states that were able to provide complaints to us was that the overall number of complaints fluctuate from year to year, but an increasing share of the complaints were focused on some claim settlement issues. I think that is consistent with what NAIC found in their data call on 23 large insurance companies. Mr. Shimkus. And I do think Ms. Burns is correct, too, when we try to do just an evaluation based on complaints. We get complaints all the time. And then people handle that differently. Some push it to the max, some people walk away, and some never respond. But I do know that for the business and industry, testimony here, news articles would not be helpful in them selling that product in the future, brand name identification stuff is really key to any product, whether it is insurance product or a beverage or something. Brand name is important. Who wants to speak real briefly, because we talked about education aspects in this with my colleague from Illinois, on this own your future aspect and campaign and has it been helpful? Mr. Vogelsong. Mr. Vogelsong. We are probably in our fifth month of the Own Your Future Campaign. Originally I was probably skeptical of this a few years ago, but our response has been over 16 percent of the people that received the first letter, we are only in the first phase of it, ordered the planning tool kit, and we just absolutely think that is phenomenal. Prior to when we started the program we thought 8 percent would be a success based on what previous states experienced. Ohio has seen the same level of success. So we are getting the information out and changing some of the people's beliefs about who is going to pay for it, the need to plan, and that is not just long-term care insurance. It is just talking to family members about some of your preferences, rearranging your home or making decisions about where you live. Quite frankly, we added $1 million to the thing for a media buy. I think it is probably one of the most successful things I have been around in the last 15 years that I have been with the government. And it is having a double effect. We just in Pittsburgh had a long-term educational seminar, and typically we would plan for about 100 to 120 people to be there. It was at the Sheraton. We had over 450 people attend that session, and I think it was attributed to the publicity around the Own Your Future Campaign. Mr. Shimkus. And Dr. Cohen, do you want to add, but as you respond to that, what do you see in the evolution of people buying and having interests and who they are and that. If you want to add that. Answer whoever you want to input, but if you would add that to your discussion, I would appreciate it. Mr. Cohen. Sure. Thank you. I would like to echo that. When we looked over the last 10 to 15 years about what are some of the barriers to purchasing long-term care insurance, you always have the issue of cost right up there for a lot of people. But then when you go beyond that you find out, as I think a number of members have already pointed out, that there is confusion about coverages, people, we looked, we did a study of non- buyers, and we asked them what the cost of long-term care were in their communities. And we actually had data and were able to show that they grossly underestimated the cost. So if you think something is going to be covered, if you think the liability isn't that great, then you are less likely to insure against that risk. And I think the Own Your Future Campaign is getting objective information into the hands of consumers so that they can mark more-informed decisions. And I think it is a great, great example of a really good policy and a good investment. With respect to what is happening, I think, in the future, some of the most important trends relate to what is happening to the average age of buyers, and I think somebody made the observation that, in fact, this ought to be part of an investment planning strategy retirement planning strategy, and I think that is what we are seeing. Back 15 years ago the average age of a buyer was 69, 70. Now it is below age 60. So people are thinking and planning ahead. It makes the insurance much more affordable at those ages as well. So I think that certainly as the strains on the public financing system increase, there is going to be a growing realization for those who can afford the policy and for whom it is suitable with respect to income and assets, that there is a viable product out there. And I think that we are seeing that actually more quickly than I might have anticipated, especially the age decline. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. I just e-mailed my staff and said this Own Your Own Future Campaign might be a good thing for us as members to help get the word out and coordinate with the area Agencies on Aging and folks to help educate. That is part of our role here is to help educate our constituents. So thank you. Mr. Stupak. Next, Vice-Chair of this Subcommittee, Mr. Melancon. Questions, please. Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I apologize for my tardiness. I started off with a fender bender this morning, so it is not a good day. But I won't take it out on anybody. I promise you. I, and I tell the story of myself, I used to be in the insurance business for a little over 20 years, and at one point in my life I decided I needed to get disability insurance and found out from the insurance companies, they told me that your biggest problem is that lawyers and doctors abuse it so much that the cost was prohibitive. So the next option was long-term care, at which time I realized I really needed to be kind to my children and make sure they put me in a home that would take care of me. And I am still continuing to be very nice to my children, and I, in fact, am trying to be nice to my grandson right now, too, just in the event that I live longer than I expected. Healthcare products, and Ms. Burns, maybe you can help me with this, I bought my long-term care from a company that does life primarily but does, there are some that do life and health. Is the long-term care policy a life and health product? Is it required that it be sold by a licensed company that is regulated? Ms. Burns. Well, I can speak to that for California, and in California a long-term care policy is lumped in with other health types of products, although some life insurance policies do have what is called an accelerated death benefit, which pays for long-term care, in which case that would be a life insurance product and regulated as such. So I don't know what other states, how those states deal with that. Mr. Melancon. Then maybe Mr. Dicken might have some knowledge of across the board in the country. Mr. Dicken. Yes. Certainly states have specific requirements for long-term care insurance in many ways. It is a different, unique product, having futures both of life, having the long tale, where it is many years before people between, starting to buy their coverage until they may be taking claims on it. And so there are many specific requirements. Mr. Melancon. There are variations across the board. Mr. Dicken. Yes. Mr. Melancon. Mr. Bode, how much has your parents paid in their policy before your mother got sick and needed to start-- -- Mr. Bode. Approximately $72,000. Mr. Melancon. And do you remember how many years that was? Mr. Bode. Gosh, probably at least 20 years. Mr. Melancon. Yes. Mr. Bode. I can honestly tell you that the premiums that they were paying in 2005, when my father was still alive, a month before his death, was $319 a month. It rose to $354 a month in January, 2006, 4 months after his death, and by a year later it was up to $442.62, and those represent escalations of 11 percent followed by 25 percent for a widow, and that was taking well over half when combined with Medicare. Well over half of her income was being spent on insurance, and that is why it took the five of us to come together financially to help her pay for her stay at assisted living. But that was two escalations; 11 percent, followed by 25 percent within a 2-year period of time. Mr. Melancon. If I remember correctly, mine escalates every year to keep up with the inflation costs or the monthly costs in the event that I am put into a nursing home and need long- term care. And if I remember correctly, there is a clause in there if I don't take it, then that is it. I don't get to come back and pick up later. Do you just, was that also---- Mr. Bode. Well, if you don't pay the insurance, it is gone. Mr. Melancon. No, but I meant, if I don't opt to pay the escalated costs, then I lock in, if I remember correctly, I lock in at the rate where I last took that escalation clause, and that is it. I don't---- Mr. Bode. No. There is, as far, to my best knowledge there is no agreement to that kind of acceptance of the lower costs without the escalation. Mr. Melancon. Ms. Burns, maybe you know the answer. Is that, in fact---- Ms. Burns. I think what you are talking about is that periodically you have the right to increase your daily benefit. Mr. Melancon. Every year. Ms. Burns. It is an inflation protection. Mr. Melancon. Right. Ms. Burns. And that is the premium increase that you are being charged---- Mr. Melancon. Right. Ms. Burns [continuing]. If you exercise it, and then if you don't exercise it a certain number of times, then you lose the right to it completely. Mr. Melancon. Yes. Ms. Burns. So you are only being charged, it sounds like, for the increase in the daily costs that you are buying. Mr. Melancon. Yes. So that my kids can put me in a nice place. And hopefully just won't leave me there. Yes. Ms. Burns. I wanted to just clarify one thing that we talked about earlier, and I think it had to do with long-term care services and communities and awareness. I would just like to point out to all of you that we don't really have a long- term care system. Everyone who needs long-term care constructs their own system out of whatever patchwork of services are available in their community. And there is a real good, a real big disconnect between the services that are available to people and the way that an insurance company describes what they will pay for. So and assisted living is probably a pretty good example of that, because assisted living is licensed or certified differently across the States, and when an insurance company product describes assisted living, they describe what they will pay for, which may be very different than what is being provided within that State. Mr. Melancon. Some policies will give you home care, some policies only for nursing home or assisted living. Is that correct? Ms. Burns. That is true, but if it is there, if you buy an assisted living benefit and you know what you think assisted living means, when you get to the point of filing a claim, the company may then say to you, well assisted living is a particular facility with a certain number of beds, ten beds. I have a case like that right now when Genworth, where a person has a policy that pays assisted living benefits. She is in a facility in California. Our license begins at six beds. So she is getting assisted living under a State-licensed assisted living facility at, in six beds. And the company won't pay because the facility doesn't have ten beds. So there is a disconnect between were those services available in a community and the way they may be described in an insurance policy, and no two companies have the same definitions for these things. So it is, that is one of the problems with claims is how those things are described and what people are getting and what they think they bought. Mr. Melancon. What they think they bought is usually the case. I keep hearing reference the NAIC, the Insurance Commissioners, and I was, as a State Legislator I was in involved in a group called NCOIL, and I was just wondering if any of your advocacy groups have been involved, because those are the guys, state Legislators, that do model legislation to try and get as much across the country, state-by-state to adopt. And of course, they get some variances when they bring them to each state because of the laws there that pertain. Has there been any involvement in any of the groups, your group or---- Ms. Burns. I actually testified at an NCOIL meeting in February, I think, about these issues, and the NAIC sets a minimum standard, and it is, from my perspective as an advocate I appreciate a minimum standard, because I can talk to my state about that minimum standard from a national organization. But I want the flexibility to be able to go beyond that if I can convince our State Legislature that we need to do more or something better than what the NAIC did. And, in fact, that is exactly what we have done in California. New York has done that; Florida has done that. But there are a lot of states that haven't adopted many provisions that are in the model. So it isn't a national model until you folks make it one by giving some federal benefit to is. Mr. Melancon. I thank you, and I just looked up, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I really ran over my time. Since I have none to yield back---- Mr. Stupak. No wonder why they tried to run you over. Mr. Melancon. I am operating on Louisiana time today, so I still have some more time. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Shimkus and I were just talking. Do you have a question or two of this panel before we dismiss them? They were a great panel, and basically you have sat here. It is unusual, but since you are from Ways and Means, and you have a long history here. I would like to see if you had a question. Mr. Pomeroy. I so appreciate the offer, and I might have of the next panel. I would just observe for this panel, Bonnie Burns, it is great to hear your testimony once again. In my time as an Insurance Regulator I did not meet a consumer advocate that was more technically informed than Bonnie Burns. She knows, when she goes to work with an insurance company on a claim, she knows the policy better than the person probably representing the insurance company. She also, though, understands the public policy ramifications of some of the way policies are written and some of the way claims are adjusted. So she is just a tremendous resource. The way states, I think, learn from one another in regulating insurance is to have some, the kind of leadership that a Californian will have under the guidance of advocacy of Bonnie Burns and the others. And then the other states evaluate whether they have just killed the marketplace or whether it actually works and whether the premiums are affordable, and if the market works, well, then other states, I think, will be inclined to follow the best practices with stronger consumer standards in those states. Maybe the NAIC should then revisit the model as has been referenced in your own testimony later. Now, in light of the partnership legislation that Mr. Burgess talked about earlier, we have put a distinct federal interest out there, and so while normally we defer to states with their regulations, there is certainly precedent for the Federal Government through legislation picking up standards that has been developed statewide and imposing them nationally. Again, as someone who was very involved in this partnership legislation, I want to make sure that when we are basically saying Medicaid is going to accept higher, we are going to give spend-down relief for long-term care insurance, that this long- term care insurance is a completely legitimate line of coverage, doing what consumers and what the public has a right to expect. So maybe we should look at whether the standards are high enough and whether there are other state examples we ought to incorporate nationally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy, and thank you to this panel on behalf of all of us up here. Thank you. It was a very good panel. Thank you for being here, and you are excused. I would now call up our second panel of witnesses to come forward. On our second panel we have the Honorable Sean Dilweg, who is the Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Wisconsin, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, we worked with a number of Senators, and Senator Kohl speaks highly of your work, Mr. Dilweg, and asked that you be part of this panel. So we are glad to have you here. The Honorable Kevin McCarty, who is the Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Florida, is here. The Honorable Eric Dinallo, who is the Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, and the Honorable Mike Kreidler, who is the Commissioner of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Washington, a former member of this Committee when he served in Congress in the early 1990s. Good to see you back, Mike. And it is the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. Please be advised that witnesses have the right under the Rules of the House to be advised by counsel during their testimony. Do any of you gentleman wish to be represented by counsel? Everyone is saying, indicating no. So, therefore, I am going to ask you to please rise and raise your right hand to take the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Stupak. Witnesses, let the record reflect the witnesses replied in the affirmative. You are now under oath. We will begin our opening statement. Please limit it to 5 minutes. If you have a longer statement, we will include it and make it part of the record. Mike, since you are the old veteran here, I will let you, we will go with you. How is that? We are going to start off with testimony, please. STATEMENT OF MIKE KREIDLER, COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. Kreidler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Shimkus, and Committee members. It is my pleasure to be here and to be able to speak to this very important topic. I am the elected Insurance Commissioner of the State of Washington, not Wisconsin. I don't want to supercede Sean down the row here. We learn from the past about long-term care insurance, and in the State of Washington we have a long history. Going back to 1986, when I was a State Senator we wound up passing a long- term care insurance act in small part because of the work that the NAIC had done at that time and introduced some very important consumer protection requirements. We thought we were well prepared. We never imagined how much the product nor the long-term care industry would change over the next 22 years when that legislation was enacted. The delivery system has evolved rather considerably during that period of time. At the time most people got their health, got their long- term care, thought of long-term care, and the policy would cover it in skilled nursing homes. It was also going to cover people who were going to be very sick and that most people would be, continue to be cared through the informal care system of long-term care, which is through family members and neighbors and friends that play an important part in the informal system. We also were not prepared for how much longer people would continue to live and also that they would live longer with chronic disease. We also saw a rather dramatic increase and change in the products that were out or the care delivery system as it evolved with assisted living to adult family homes, something that was not a part of what we were looking at when we were enacting that legislation. The original long-term care policies were priced based on those assumptions. Unfortunately, we found out that that was difficult to predict. We are also stuck with that same problem today of knowing what the system will look like 25 to 30 years from now when the individuals purchasing today may be accessing their or making claims on their long-term care policies. There were problems with pricing in the past. When it first emerged, we thought not too many consumers would buy it. A lot of consumers wound up buying long-term care policies as the products first came onto the market. Companies and regulators looked at assumptions as to how it should be priced, and those assumptions were that not too many people would buy it, that if they bought it, they would follow much like a life insurance model that they would actually not keep the policies. A number of people would surrender them and that meant that not that many would wind up using them. Those assumptions were wrong. The new long-term care products are priced much more accurately, and consequently, are much more expensive. We also wrestle with the issue of suitability. Washington State, we were one of the early States to be a partnership State back in 1995, and we are in the process of being, renewing our partnership role in the State of Washington. Behind the push, obviously, to address this issue is the fact that consumers are living longer, more people are winding up needing long-term care services, and the States are being heavily impacted with their Medicaid budgets. Personally, I support partnership and giving people more choices. Long-term care is an issue for virtually everyone, but there is a challenge from many people. In fact, few can really afford long-term care insurance, because it is an expensive product. How can consumers be protected in the future? Recently we adopted the NAIC Model Act, and are in the process of implementing it currently, but even with those protections it still may not be enough because of the difficulty of making predictions as to what the long-term care delivery system will look like and how it will evolve in the future when you have to look out that far. In closing, let me say that we have a crisis with funding. It is only going to get worse. Our population is aging, and people are living longer, longer than we had imagined previously, and that trend is likely to continue. We are extremely difficult to predict what that care will look like in the future. We are weary of looking at long-term care insurance to fund all of our long-term care needs. It clearly is a part of the solution but only a part of the solution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kreidler follows:] Statement of Mike Kreidler Summary The testimony of Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler focuses on Washington State's experience with long-term care insurance regulation from 1986 to the present. Washington State developed its own unique set of long-term care insurance laws that differed from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (NAIC) model laws and yet long-term care insurance policyholders in Washington experiences many of the same problems reported by other states. Emphasis is given to the problems encountered in regulating a new product with no prior experience in establishing the appropriate premium rates for this particular line of coverage. In addition, Commissioner Kreidler discusses problems with the evolution of the long-term care delivery system, and the failure of certain long-term care insurance policies to provide benefits for newer types of long-term care services. The type and number of consumer complaints are examined with reference to the inter-state cooperation through the NAIC's multi-state Market Conduct Exam process. The Commissioner also discusses the suitability of sales to certain low-income individuals. Commissioner Kreidler encourages Congress to learn from Washington State's experience, and not to view private long- term care insurance as the solution to the growing problem of government funding of long-term care services. Testimony Good morning Chairman Stupak, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of whether long-term care insurance consumers are protected for the long-term. My name is Mike Kreidler, and I am the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Washington and a former member of Congress. I am testifying today on behalf of Washington State as it is my belief that our experience in regulating long-term care insurance and the lessons learned in our state over the past 22 years will be helpful to you as you plot the course for future regulation of this product. My primary mission as an insurance regulator is consumer protection. It is my duty and the duty of my office to make sure that policyholders are treated fairly. And if they're not, we have laws in place to hold the insurance companies accountable. At the same time, it is critically important that the insurance companies we oversee remain financially sound in order to pay the claims of the consumers we protect. The importance of this crucial oversight can not be understated as this Committee focuses on the problems related to the cost of long-term care insurance and the impact of rate increases on consumers. Washington state's experiences with long-term care insurance regulation In the mid 1980s, Washington State was on the cutting edge of regulating long-term care insurance. Our public policymakers recognized that products being marketed as ``Skilled Nursing Facility Insurance'' were woefully inadequate and failed to provide benefits for custodial long-term care. Consumers often did not realize until it was too late, that benefit limitations or ``gatekeepers'' such as prior hospitalization clauses and requirements that the benefits were only for ``skilled'' care meant that most claims submitted for custodial services would not be paid under those policies. As a result of these problems, the Washington State Legislature passed comprehensive laws in 1986 to govern the content and sales practices of long-term care insurance products. The laws and rules were adopted a year before the NAIC model Act and Rule and although there were similarities between the two sets of laws in many areas, there were some differences. In particular, Washington's laws differed in the area of rating requirements and permitted exclusions. At the time our laws were developed, they were considered progressive with strong consumer protections. We put into place stringent rating requirements and the products and rates were reviewed by individuals with expertise in the area of long-term care services and the delivery system as they existed in 1986. Exclusions for all mental illnesses, not just ``organic'' brain disorders, were prohibited. Inappropriate sales to low-income individuals who were eligible for Medicaid were prohibited. Companies could not condition the receipt of nursing home care on a three-day prior hospitalization. In spite of all of this good work, the public policymakers never imagined how the long-term care service delivery system would evolve over the next 22 years and how consumers would respond to this relatively new product. In addition, the remarkable period of low interest rates of the `90s and advances in health care that prolonged the life of many seniors all influenced the price of long-term care insurance products. Given the theme of today's hearing, I'll address some of the lessons learned in our state with the hope that you will learn from our past to inform the future of long-term care insurance regulation. Premium Price Increases for Long-term Care Insurance: The majority of consumer complaints my office receives about long-term care insurance are about the double-digit rate increase they receive on products they purchased in the late `80s and early to mid `90s. Consumers who receive these double- digit rate increases every few years do not understand how the rate increases could be justified. Unfortunately, many can no longer afford the premiums. Adding to their frustration, consumers often misunderstand the level of authority my office has over long-term care insurance rates. Many believe that my office has the authority to either ``set rates'' or disapprove rate increases even if the rate increase is justified. When faced with repeat double- digit increases, they do not want to hear how rates must be sufficient to ensure the ongoing financial viability of the company. From the very beginning of long-term care insurance regulation, Washington put into place very strong rules governing pricing of these products. The guiding statutory principle for our rate review authority is that rates may not be ``excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.'' All initial rates and rate changes must be submitted to my office and may not be used until they are approved. Unfortunately, the first generation of long-term care policies were simply priced too low, and in some cases, significantly so. Because these products were new to the market, actuaries for companies and the actuaries for insurance regulators were forced to make assumptions in setting the premiums. They needed to estimate how long people would keep their policies in force, what the interest rate of return would be on their reserves, and the future cost of long-term care services. And, I can say with regret but confidence that no one, neither the companies nor the regulators reviewing the rates got it right. With the advantage of hindsight, we've learned that people buying long-term care insurance bought it for the long-haul. They did not drop their coverage at the frequency originally estimated by the actuaries. And as people live longer with chronic illnesses, they're also using their benefits at higher rates than anticipated. In addition, interest rates on the companies' reserves dropped to historic lows and stayed there for a long period of time leaving the earned income on the reserves well below what was needed. We're now faced with granting justified rate increases on products that were significantly underpriced. Although the NAIC model for long-term care insurance has attempted to address this area of concern by establishing rate stability requirements, all policymakers-state and federal law makers-should be concerned about how vastly different the world could be 25 to 30 years from now when the typical 50 year old that purchases long-term care insurance requires the services. Last year, the Washington State Legislature adopted the NAIC Model Act. My office is in the process of adopting the Model Rule for products issued as of January 2009. It is my hope and belief that the consumer protections and rate stability provisions in these Model laws will help ensure that consumers are better protected against underpriced long-term care products. Unfortunately, we may not know if we've been successful until 10 to 15 years from now. Benefit design and covered services In Washington State, we learned another valuable lesson around the area of benefits or plan designs. The first few generations of long-term care insurance products were not designed to modify benefits overtime to keep up with the dynamic changes in the delivery system. In fact, because these products are ``guaranteed renewable,'' companies could not modify the benefit structure. Most early generation long-term care products provided for nursing facility care and some limited home health care services, but they specifically excluded other types of services. The early generation products do not cover new delivery systems such as assisted living facilities, adult day care centers and other community-based services. Many consumers are not aware that the types of services they desire are not eligible for benefits under their policies until it is too late. Long-term care policies must be flexible enough that the benefits adapt as the delivery system evolves. However, companies will likely charge more for this flexibility because it is difficult to rate the unknown. Consumer Complaints and Market Oversight Washington State has relatively few consumer complaints regarding how claims are settled. With the exception of a few companies that have faced financial difficulty, most long-term care claims are settled promptly. And most of the complaints we receive regarding claim denials are appropriate under the terms of the policy. That we've received a limited number of complaints regarding claim denials may be due in part to the fact that very few claims are ever made in the early years of a long-term care policy. Individuals who buy long-term care insurance undergo strict health underwriting. This process screens out consumers with chronic illnesses that may lead to the need for long-term care services. As a result, unless there is a sudden and unexpected illness or accident, it is unlikely that the policyholders will require long-term care services for many years after buying their policy. Other complaints we receive regarding claim denials deal specifically with a particular provider type not being covered under the policy. We hear from consumers who are upset that the products they purchased many years ago will not cover new types of long-term care services, especially community-based care and alternatives to nursing home services. Unfortunately, there is little we can do regarding coverage of benefits for the older generation of policies. The insurance contracts cannot be modified after the issue date because they are guaranteed renewable. The initial pricing assumptions did not take into account the changes in utilization that would occur if additional services were provided under the policy. Claim payment delays, however, are a serious problem. We deal directly with companies on a case-by-case basis to make sure that claims are paid appropriately. We also report the information to the NAIC's complaint database and, if appropriate, to the Market Analysis Working Group (MAWG) for consideration for a possible multi-state Market Conduct Examination. Suitability of Sales There is an old adage among long-term care insurance agents that ``long-term care insurance is bought, not sold.'' In other words, unlike other types of insurance that people purchase such as life, auto and homeowners insurance, long-term care insurance is something that few individuals understand or purchase without persuasion by an insurance agent. Many individuals are unaware that Medicare does not pay for long- term care services. The role of educating individuals on the financing of long-term care services often falls to insurance agents. Although our state mandates specific educational requirements for agents selling long-term care insurance, it is important to note that this product needs to be evaluated as part an overall financial planning strategy. It is not for everyone. From the very early days of long-term care insurance regulation, Washington State prohibited the sale of these products to Medicaid-eligible individuals. In addition, many affluent individuals tend to consider long-term care insurance as part of their estate planning and often utilize other financial products and services to fund their long-term care needs. These and other factors leave a limited market of middle- class individuals who may consider buying long-term care insurance. It is critically important that we focus on the suitability of long-term care insurance to fund an individual's long-term care needs. In closing, I hope that you will find my perspective useful in evaluating the future of private and public financing of long-term care services. Although this product may serve the needs of certain individuals, it is not the solution to our long-term care funding crisis. ---------- Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Kreidler. Next from the Honorable Eric Dinallo, Superintendent, New York State Insurance Department. Sir, if you would, please. STATEMENT OF ERIC DINALLO, SUPERINTENDENT, NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT Mr. Dinallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Shimkus. Mr. Stupak. You have to press that button there. Mr. Dinallo. I have to press the button, or you don't hear me thanking you. I apologize. Mr. Stupak. No problem. Mr. Dinallo. I believe that New York has succeeded in its early implementation of long-term care insurance. While the product is still relatively new and the development continues, I am here to discuss some of the elements that we believe contributed to this and why continued promotion and expansion is essential and how to improve our program. The early results, I think, are because of, I would say building the product well from the ground up, and that goes to strong consumer protection. We have, I am going to talk about claims oversight, what we have in called prior approval and a real emphasis on solvency and the approval forms process. In consumer protection, we have done, I think, a pretty good job in the claims payment area. We have three primary tools to oversee claims adjudication. First, the Health Department reviews each and every partnership claim that is denied, and as the claim volume increases in the future, this may not be possible, but for now it has been very helpful in keeping everyone sort of on the same page and informing us. Second, the Insurance Department conducts regular market conduct exams and reviewing the claims practice payment of all the insurers. Third, the Insurance Department investigates each complaint received from consumers demanding that the insurer remedy any problems identified. Thus, while we receive some complaints of delayed claims processing, the claims have not been widespread, and we have acted to remedy any improprieties that we found. The rate setting is probably the most important area. New York has prior approval of rates for long-term care insurers and our actuaries, which are sort of an oblique and pessimistic bunch, have ensured that the rates are not set too high, but also most importantly, I think that they are not set too low. I think whenever there is someone who comes into a market as a market entrance the tendency is always to try to price very, very low, and that leads to sort of a death spiral and adverse selection as prices get spiked back up. It is important when you are selling promises as opposed to selling widgets that you price it appropriately at the front end so you can ensure for solvency, and I think some of what I heard on the earlier panel about difficulty in claims processing, a lot of disagreements have to do with companies that may have under-priced at the beginning, and they are trying to skid out to a better outcome. And I think it is really important that States and the actuaries do, in fact, not let people price too low as well as too high. We monitor the solvency as I said, and our policy forms, we have a staff of attorneys that really try to make the policy forms simple and consumer friendly. There is always a tendency to want to go for universal policy forms across the country, but I think that New York has done a good job in keeping them easier for people to understand. The second big area is promotion of long-term care insurance. Again, if you are selling fishing rods, you can sort of sell them and then go out of business, and the fishing rod is out there and hopefully it works pretty well and all, but once you are selling a liability, you have to keep people coming into the system. Ponzi Scheme is an impolite word, but in a sense if you don't keep people coming into the programs, you are going to have a big problem down the line. So New York has invested a lot of resources in having a real outreach program. We have, I think that the legislature has put about $2 million into us establishing offices in every county of the State to conduct individualized counseling to consumers as well as public information sessions, and I think that is one of the most important aspects. Finally, Governor Patterson has recently proposed a law that I think would improve our system, and here are the three improvements in that law. It would allow income protection as well as what we already have now, which is the total asset protection for New York State Partnership Plans. Number two, require external appeals for long-term insurance claim denials. This would allow third parties who are not employed by the long-term care insurer to review claim denials to ensure objectivity and compliance with the applicable laws. I heard someone say earlier in the panel that in California, I think it might have been, they can't really do anything once there has been an adjudication. Similarly, we could maybe put some emphasis, but we need an external appeal process. We have it in other areas. We don't have it in long- term care. And finally, require long-term care insurers to comply with the Product Pay Law, which requires insurers to pay claims within 45 days or deny or pend claims within 30 days and fines that are commensurate with that. So a fining process around late claims. Thank you very much. I have an expert staff sitting behind me for any of the difficult questions I saw coming up from the last panel. It has been a pleasure. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dinallo follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.085 Mr. Stupak. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. The Honorable Kevin McCarty, Commissioner of Insurance, State of Florida. Sir, if you would, please, opening statement. You have to pull one of those mikes up to you and press that green button so we can all hear you. STATEMENT OF KEVIN MCCARTY, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. McCarty. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. My name is Kevin McCarty, and I am the Insurance Commissioner of the Office of Insurance Regulation for the State of Florida. First of all, I want to thank you for the invitation to attend today to address this very important public policy question, long-term care insurance, are consumers protected, in fact, for the long term? The short answer in my mind and for the State of Florida is the answer is yes. Florida, like other States, has historically experienced a lot of challenges in regulating this new industry. We have responded by implementing what I think is one of the more rigorous regulatory standards to protect our seniors from unfair pricing, unfair trade practices, and unfair discrimination, while at the same time fostering a competitive marketplace. Florida, like the nation, has an aging population, which combined with certain economic indicators has created a greater demand for long-term care products. These products can be important for the financial and the health needs of our citizens, which in turn, puts a lot of pressure on policy makers to ensure a viable long-term care marketplace and to protect the individual rights of our aging population. Unfortunately, long-term care insurance was initially under-priced in our State and around the country. Our 2003 rating reforms that were adopted in Florida were very much modeled after the NAIC regulations, which my colleague from Wisconsin will go into much more detail. These initial regulations helped tremendously in Florida to stabilize the cost of long-term care in our marketplace. But we still experience significant problems. Our office then conducted a comprehensive study of the industry in 2005, and 2006, with a number of findings, three of which I would like to highlight. Consumers with policies that were issued before 2003 had very little protections from spiraling and sizable rate increases. Number two, there were continued incidences and allegations of rescissions of contracts based upon inappropriate use of the fraud exceptions to the contestability period. And lastly, while Florida had a rate law which required pulling within a company, companies could often circumvent that law by establishing rating blocks through establishment of affiliate companies. To address these findings, Florida passed and adopted a sweeping reform in April of 2006. This bill helped make long- term care insurance predictable, affordable, available, and more marketable. These reforms exceeded the standards contained in the NAIC model regulation. As Ms. Burns established in many cases those are the minimum standards. The legislation requires that any contestability period in a policy that is being sold in Florida could be no longer than 2 years. After that 2-year period the policy can be canceled only for non-payment of premium. This protects Floridians from any post-event underwriting. In addition, under the 2006 reforms insurers must pull the experience of all affiliated companies, not just experience with an individual company. This reduces the development of death spirals within the affiliates. Death spirals is when blocks of businesses are closed and the experience deteriorates, the healthy people leave, the loss ratio continues to go up, and it causes more and more rate increases. Florida continues to work with other States in combination to address market conduct issues on a multi-State level. A targeted examination of Bankers' Life and Conseco Senior was led by the State of Pennsylvania and joined by a number of States, including Florida. The focus of the examination was complaint handling and claims handling. In the case of Bankers, looked into their inappropriate marketing activities. After extensive negotiations regarding these, the companies agreed to a corrective action plan, implementing changes to the companies' claim handling practices and standards to ensure that they pay timely, appropriately, and consistent with State laws, rules, and regulations. They also agreed to establish a compliance plan for marketing activities to ensure that producers comply with appropriate standards of the law. You can get a complete summary of the findings and findings in the agreements as part of my written testimony. In conclusion, Florida is not unique in dealing with the changing demographics. The population of the United States is aging, and health costs are increasing. We all know that. Florida will continue to be a national leader and help in developing standards to protect our seniors and to guarantee that consumers long-term care insurance does protect them, in fact, for the long term. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. [The prepared statement of Mr. McCarty follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.103 Mr. Stupak. Thank you, and next the Honorable Sean Dilweg from the State of Wisconsin, and as I said earlier, Senator Kohl had asked that you be part of this panel. We have been working closely with the Senate, and we are taking the lead on these hearings, but we work closely with them. They highly recommended you and look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF SEAN DILWEG, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Dilweg. Thank you, Chairman Stupak. I have spent a number of winters in your district skiing, so I do see your district often. Thank you Ranking Member Shimkus and Congressman Pomeroy for being here. I am testifying before you today on behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in my role with NAIC, not just a Commissioner from the State of Wisconsin, but as Chairman of the Senior Issues Task Force I interact a lot with my Senator Herb Kohl and am very happy to be here to talk today. The primary objective of insurance regulators is to protect the consumers of all lines of insurance, including long-term care insurance and to ensure that the markets function appropriately and efficiently. Today I will highlight how the regulation of long-term insurance has evolved over the past 20 years, which has been touched on by some of my fellow Commissioners, the NAIC's role in this process, the role of the Federal Government, and what we are seeing for the future in regulating this market. I submitted lengthy written testimony that I know my staff, Gunther Rockowasso, worked closely with Mr. Pomeroy 18 years ago, worked on extensively. So I have him here for backup. As you know, long-term care insurance began as a supplement to limit nursing home benefits provided under Medicare. So it is relatively unique. Industry came to us as we looked at regulating it as a stand-alone insurance policy. Regulators currently are in a position of having to react to decisions consumers and industry made 15 years ago while also facing the challenge of ensuring policies purchased today provide meaningful coverage over the next 20 years. Looking back to the '70s and '80s, there was much concern about health insurance sales to elderly, including the sale of long-term care insurance. Many policies were sold to seniors through agents using high-pressure sales tactics, either endorsed or ignored by their insurance companies. Mr. Stupak. You may want to wait a minute here. There are about three or four bells. Mr. Dilweg. Def-com. Mr. Stupak. There you go. It is not quite that bad. Mr. Dilweg. Just let me know. So many of the premiums charged for these early policies were inappropriately low to make the initial sale more affordable. Unfortunately, these low initial premiums resulted in substantial premium increases to policies in later years exactly at the time they needed coverage the most. During the debates at NAIC, the insurance industry argued that initial premiums for these earlier policies were based on the best assumptions available at the time in a very new market. Some regulators, however, warned industry that some of their assumptions were not realistic. We argued that companies charged low initial premiums to build their books of business while fully expecting to raise future premiums when claim activity we expected to increase. The result of this practice years later has given rise to several regulatory concerns. First with initial premiums priced low, the suitability of some of the sales was called into question. Regulators concerned with these low initial premiums masked the affordability of these products for many consumers. We questioned whether suitability was even part of the marketing and sales process. Second, insurers overestimated the lapse rate in developing the initial premiums. This means more people kept their policies than anticipated. Finally, this practice has resulted in a solvency issue for some companies, especially those whose only business was long- term care insurance. Some insurers have experienced negative financial results so that State regulators financial staff has become involved with the companies. Consequently, the number of insurers writing long-term care insurance has decreased over the last several years. There are fewer long-term care insurers today than there were 10 years ago. That is because the demand for long-term care insurance is not as anticipated in the early years of the product. Over the years the NAIC sought several revisions to the rate stability provisions to what we have today. In the early '90s in response to increasing premiums we actually developed a rate cap. They gave a specific hard cap that companies had to abide by. This was a model proposed but not adopted by State Legislatures throughout the country. Today a long-term care insurer is required to include an actuary certification in its initial rate filing, certifying that rates are not expected to increase over the life of the policy under moderately-adverse conditions. This is a back and forth between the actuaries at the, at my staff and my staffs throughout the country and the companies. Should an insurer increase its rates under this regulatory structure, the rate increase must meet an 85 percent loss ratio, and the initial rates must meet a 58 percent loss ratio. Until the insurer files a rate increase, there are no loss ratio requirements for these products. In addition, the insurer is required to provide disclosures to its customer on its rate history. Under this new rate stability structure that many of the new long-term care insurance polices are written under, it is too early to know whether it will adequately address the problems associated with inadequate initial premiums. But I am confident it will go a long way in addressing problems and enforcing insurers to change inadequate first year premiums. One of the major concerns State Regulators have had about this product was its suitability. Bonnie Burns spoke to some of that earlier. Therefore, the NAIC adopted suitability standards as a part of its Model Act and regulation. These requirements developed in conjunction with consumer advocates and industry resulted in a suitability process that helps ensure long-term care insurance sales were, in fact, suitable. For example, the standards require that all long-term care insurers develop their own suitability. NAIC long-term care insurance models also provide a number of valuable consumer protections unique to this type of policy. They include an unintentional lapse provision, the offer of inflation protection, and a requirement that ensures provide a contingent, non-forfeiture benefit to those policies, to those policyholders who did not purchase it. These are just some of the examples that I have outlined more extensively in my written testimony on how we have responded to issues in the long-term care insurance market. Many of the States have adopted key provisions of these models. Some of the States use the models verbatim. When we look throughout the States, we have 49 that use some of, some version of NAIC's long-term care insurance models. With the recent activity in the New York Times and from Senator Grassley and others, we decided to also move forward with a data call that pulled in 80 percent of the market looking at 23 long-term care insurers. We did a 58-point data call that found very similar to Dr. Cohen, but although claims in raw numbers had grown, they were not claims for problems. They were not statistically significant at the time. But in looking at the claims issues that we have been confronting, at the NAIC Senior Issues Task Force we are moving ahead with examining an external independent review requirement to look at the triggers that triggers these claims and will be working through that issue over the next 6 months. The decision of an independent review organization would be finding on the insurer and the claimant. Currently claimants who believe their claims have been unjustly denied have the recourse of filing a grievance with their insurer. The independent review feature would give claimants another independent resource in solving their claim problems. Other ideas to look at would be a basket of benefits that could be looked at across all insurance companies or looking at a commonality of terms so that consumers could compare products in a more thoughtful manner. There is also, as spoken before, the Partnership Program and HIPAA model that should examine some of the new NAIC models. Some of the rate stability models that we have have not been adopted under the Partnership Program through the DRA. So I would encourage that we examine that at a federal level. Chairman Stupak, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the Subcommittee and Congressman Pomeroy, I appreciate testifying before you this morning, and I look forward to responding to any of your questions, and as always, we are a resource here for you as well. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dilweg follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.131 Mr. Stupak. Well, thank you, and thank you to this panel for your testimony. As you indicated, it is not Def-com, but we do have votes on the floor. We have four of them, so I am going to ask you to come back at one clock, and Subcommittee will stand in recess until one o'clock, and hopefully we are done with our votes, and we can get going right into questions at one o'clock. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Stupak. The hearing will come back to order. When we left off, when we recessed, we just completed the testimony of our insurance commissioner panel. So we will begin with questions. Mr. McCarty, if I may, a couple questions. Florida played a leading role in the Interstate Settlement Agreement with Conseco. What were some of the practices on the part of Conseco that you found troubling? How much confidence do you have that these practices will cease and that the company will become a strong providers of long-term care insurance? Mr. McCarty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two companies that were subject to the multi-state investigation. Bankers Insurance Company, which was largely being reviewed for their marketing practices, and then the Conseco Senior Products, which were concerned about their claims handling and the prompt payment of claims. We believe that we have entered into a multi-state agreement that addresses both companies in a very comprehensive manner. First of all, the company was fined $2.3 million. They were instructed as part of the agreement to implement a very costly system for claims handling, claims payment, prompt pay. They are subject to ongoing monitoring system and will be subject to a $10 million fine if they fail to meet any of the benchmarks that have been established in the multi-state agreement. With regard to the marketing practices for Bankers, we set up for, processed for how they changed their marketing practices, penalties with regard to producers that do not follow those benchmarks in a similar situation with that company as well, if they fail to meet those benchmarks will be subject to a fine. We believe that the settlement agreement is comprehensive and will require ongoing monitoring and believe that the company will comply with the State laws and regulations. Mr. Stupak. And Bankers, you mentioned Bankers, that is really a sub of Conseco. Isn't that a Conseco Senior Health? Mr. McCarty. It is part of the Conseco Group. Yes. Mr. Stupak. Conseco Inc. OK. Penn Treaty raised its premiums in various states a number of times on its older policies. We have heard from witnesses in our first panel, the GAO and others, that it is possible for a company to raise rates or frequently to have higher levels than other states that do not have strong rate stabilization laws. How is that fair? I am trying to get these rates things, because it is an older policy you just automatically justify an increased rate? In New York you mentioned you had a pre- approval for price increases. Do you want to comment on that? Mr. Dinallo. Sure. In New York in this area we have what is called prior approval, which means that the Department has to-- it means what it says--priorly approve the rates requested by the companies. Here I think that was very effective because as I said before, companies will sometimes come in and in order to get market share, they may, in fact, try to price too low, and especially in conditions where you are building a book and you are not exactly sure what the uptake is going to be, and you may have solvency issues. It is almost as incumbent on the regulator to demand, it is hard to say, but higher pricing than lower pricing so that you don't have the death spiral that the Commissioner described before and or adverse selection issues. Mr. Stupak. Do the rest of you have a prior approval process for rates so you don't have that problem? Mr. Dilweg? Mr. Dilweg. I think both Commissioner Kreidler and I, also, we do not have the rate filing or the rate approval process, but we do have other tools that recently does put us on tenuous ground if we were to be challenged. That is an issue, and I think Mike would speak to that as well. But in practice we are able to reduce, we just had recently a 70 percent increase request that we reduced to 20 percent. So we need to use other tools that we have in our statutes to get at some of these issues. Mr. Stupak. Mike, did you want to add anything? Mr. Kreidler. Mr. Chairman, I would add that we do have prior approval in our state, too, so that we are going to take a look at those rates to make sure that they are not excessive, insufficient, or unfairly discriminatory. And we have some really broad authority to look at it from those perspectives before we allow a rate to be imposed. Mr. Stupak. Have any of you had a company come forward, a new entry into your market or into your state and say, we would like to sell long-term insurance, and you have not allowed them? Has that ever happened? Mr. McCarty. Mr. McCarty. We have companies who apply for a license, get licensed in terms of selling long-term care. We have prevented companies from putting products in the commerce stream that did not meet the standard. As my colleague---- Mr. Stupak. But that would be a State standard. Right? Mr. McCarty. Right. Our State standard in terms of we are concerned and share the concern, most of the problems have not been that the products have come into the commerce stream overpriced. They have been underpriced. Mr. Stupak. Underpriced. Mr. McCarty. And as one of the things that Superintendent Dinallo was referring to, is we have denied people from putting those, under-pricing the marketplace for fear of what we have experienced in the '90s, which was they underestimated, either by mistake or deliberately in order to get market share, and then have very significant rate increases. The way to address that upfront is to make sure that the actual assumptions that are going into it contemplate the future expected loss ratios from that business. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Dinallo, is there tension between publicly- held corporations that owe duties to their stockholders and the need for long-term care insurers to hold large reserves? It almost seems like a built-up conflict because you have a duty to your shareholders, and most of these companies are publicly traded, are they not? Mr. Dinallo. That is a very stringent question. When you are dealing with long-term risk in the insurance industry, whether it is bond insurers or life insurance, long-term care, workers' compensation would be another one, there is a sort of philosophical issue between publicly-traded companies and what are commonly called mutuals in the life insurance area or just privately held. Privately-held companies have more of a latitude to post up bigger reserves and have higher surplus or cushion because they don't have the pull of the judiciary duty issues with their publicly-traded shareholders. And I would say that a CEO of a publicly-traded company who proudly said that he had or she had very large reserves and surplus would promptly get fired if they were not fulfilling their fiduciary duties, and it is all about return on equity. You have to constantly justify return on equity. So there is an issue there. It is different than short- term, short-tailed risk. Yes. Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you one more. My time is up, but just one more quick one. Why hasn't New York adopted the NAIC model? Now, I know you mentioned the income protection, external deals, the third party, and fine process, but why don't you access this model which---- Mr. Dinallo. Well, I think we do, there are pieces of the model that were best practices that we did adopt, but there are others, for instance, the prior approval would be an example where were have prior approval. We think that is best practices here. The other is that I believe, I am going to read here. It says, the model requires actuarial certification that is under ``moderately adverse conditions for premium increases that are not anticipated.'' So that to me is not a very high standard as I kind of made a joke. Our actuaries are a bunch of tough cookies is the polite phrasing, and I would say that one of the reasons that people have had success in New York and some have not opened in New York is because the actuaries have required a much more stringent standard than that for reserving and surplus requirements. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. My time is up. Mr. Shimkus for questions, please. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This, the Energy and Commerce Committee as our former colleague knows, has a broad jurisdiction. We have reduced that in the last couple of years where we, the financial service aspect and all that insurance stuff is in another jurisdiction. But it brings up this whole debate. Two issues. One, as we deal as members of Congress, and I did it on Monday, with the whole potpourri of federal programs and federal issues, of battling of bureaucracy on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you name it, all the alphabet soups of federal programs, and it is difficult. The last thing I want is for another venue for my constituents to come through me, which I think we have got to be very, very careful when we are trying to address this issue and the movement--I apologize. It is my wife. I never hang up on her, but I just did. So I am in trouble. She is the only one who calls. But we really have to have an issue, this debate about going too far and this whole federal charter, the federal assumption of the role of Oversight over--if we start with one insurance product, there will be an argument that we should go in multiple. And there is the national debate on federal charter for products. So let me ask you all, we know the problem, there are some people--there are a couple problems. Actuary problem, difficulty of defining what the product will be in the future that you have to pay. The other thing we need to talk about in actuary, a lot of this money, the corporate money that is set aside to hopefully make sure they make these payments are invested, and what have you had? We have had two big drops in the stock market since I have been watching it at this level, and the tech boom, which it went bust, that caused a whole different evaluation of what the assets on hand were to pay future benefits. And right now, we are experiencing again crises. So where you individually see this marriage between what we can do without assuming this as one of the grows of another, a federal bureaucracy, which I would oppose? Why don't we just go across the panel. Mr. Dilweg. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Shimkus. I think, when I look at some models that have worked, you look at how the HIPAA model was put together, that was really a connection between ourselves, NAIC, and then the feds, how the Medigap models were put together, that really the, I think it was Medicare Choice was occurring very similar problems to what Medicare Advantage has seen. I think you do have a route here through the Partnership Plans where there is a direct interaction between the standards that Partnership needs to put in place that really overlays the states. We just joined the Partnership Program last year and are in the process of putting those standards in place. As I mentioned before, they don't get into the rate stability issues that our model laws contemplated in 2006. They did, however, pick up on the agent training, agent licensing issues that we are putting in place. And so I think there could be urging of the Federal HSS to look at those overlays and interact with us. I guess I look more towards those type of minimum floor and directing us at the time certain to come back with you with agreed-to standards, that type of thing. Having navigated the NAIC now for only a year and a half, I have discovered that it is always nice to give us a date certain to get something done. So---- Mr. Shimkus. Mr. McCarty. Mr. McCarty. Yes. And I would just like to go back to what you said, Congressman, with regard to the volatility in the equities market. The state regulation of insurance is very conservative as it relates to equities investments. Therefore, it is unlikely that the volatility will affect the American insurance companies like it would, for instance, in Europe where they don't have the same kind of conservative accounting treatment we have here. I would agree with my colleague that there are a lot of things that can be done through the qualified plans that represent 90 percent or more of the policies that are issued today. Looking at some of the things the NAIC has done and maybe addressing that in the HIPAA law. And I also agree with your comment with regard to if we start getting into this, where does it begin, where does it end, the nose-under-the-tent concept. And we have historically, the NAIC have been reluctant for the Federal Government to intervene in the rating process. We certainly in New York, California, a number of other states, feel very comfortable and confident in our regulatory framework that we have put together for our seniors and our State specifically. And if the Congress does do anything, we would start with do no harm in terms of the great regulatory structures that are out there and the best practices that are being engaged today. And that if you do anything, set a minimum standard and preempt what some of the other states are doing. Thank you, sir. Mr. Dinallo. I would say there are three or four ideas I would have for this. Over-archingly, I would try to do things that would encourage participation in the product. I think it is a good product. It is set for takeoff, but it is necessary to get more participants to keep it solvent and functioning. I think Congress could consider tax treatment for the premiums that are paid, which is always a way to get people involved in a fairly neutral, helpful way. The second would be with the intersection of Medicaid obviously through the Partnership Program, and you are tweaking and constantly thinking about that. The third is what Commissioner Dilweg said earlier, which is maybe it would help to have clear--you are dealing with a certain population here for which the free market maybe isn't exactly the right way to go, by which I mean the free market of all the states with different policy forms. Maybe some clear minimum standards and some definitions of what--I saw in the first panel a lot of discussion about some very clear definitions. And the last would be urge you, whatever report you issue or whatever you say, to just be careful of not scaring people away from the product, because after the New York Times article and what is kind of swirling around, that you are in potentially sort of tenuous territory here, where what it actually needs is an injection of participants, not a flight of participants. And finally, I think the states to the extent they are a laboratory for ideas and change, are kind of executing on that right now. It is a new product. You are seeing our federalism actually kind of at its best in one sense, which is a lot of different states trying to get it right on behalf of the country, and you are surely going to see what are the best standards that come out of that, and then urge you to consider adopting some of them. Thank you. Mr. Kreidler. Congressman, I would like to take a slightly different tactic. There is an interstate compact that has been created among the 30 states now for life, annuity, and long- term care products. I think it is safe to assume that as the long-term care products which are developing standards, you will actually see most long-term care companies wanting to file that way because they can enter 30 markets immediately. And that you are actually raising the standard nationally on average by virtue of having the standards that have been created for those products. What Congress could do is, and I am a compacting state so it is real easy for me to say what to do, and I recommended it to my legislature and they overwhelmingly supported it, is that you effectively establish a requirement for the states to join the Interstate Compact or be a part of it. If you do so, you certainly raise the standard of long-term care products, and you would make it easier for products to enter the market on a national basis without the encumbrances of going from one state to another. Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Inslee for questions. Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Welcome my friend, Mike Kreidler, here, and Mike, you, I didn't get to hear your testimony, but I read it, and there is one line in there that caught my attention. You were talking about the need for stability in pricing, and you were referring to that need for establishing rate stability requirements, and you said all policymakers, state and federal lawmakers should be concerned about how vastly different the world will be 25 to 30 years from now when the typical 50-year old that purchases long-term care insurance requires its services. Tell me what we should be worried about in a nutshell. Mr. Kreidler. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. In fact, I think we should, and we are currently all worried about it because it is so difficult right now to predict what the products will look like, but even more so what the long-term care services will be that are provided 25 to 30 years from now when the policy is bought today. When we passed legislation back in 1986, in the State of Washington, it was based on assumptions here that turned out to be wrong. Actuaries have a tendency, in fact, it is not a tendency, it is a fact, to look in the rearview mirror to see what they should predict for the future. In the case of long- term care, there was nothing behind them, so the assumptions that were used were wrong, and that is why those early products turned out to be a lot more expensive than was initially predicted. But the part that we are still stuck with even into the future right now, what is the long-term care industry going to look like? We have seen such dramatic changes in the last 20 plus years, will we see those kind of changes in the future, and what impact would that have on how we have rated the products today when we are trying to look that far into the future. Mr. Inslee. I hope after this hearing you can come to 403 Cannon and tell me more about the future some time this afternoon. I would like to talk about that. Thanks. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Walden for questions. Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kreidler, I want to follow up with you because I take interest in the compact, and I wonder is Oregon part of that compact, those 30 States? Mr. Kreidler. To the best of my knowledge they are not currently a full member of the compact, but I believe they are in some degree of compliance with it, but I would have to defer to somebody else to know whether they had actually fulfilled that. I know there was some initial moves on their part to become at least partially qualified. Mr. Walden. Because I remember when I was in the State Legislature, we just touched on this issue in the late '80s and early '90s, and it always made sense to me if you could design the right product---- Mr. Kreidler. Yes. Mr. Walden [continuing]. And I know as my parents have aged and passed on now and my wife's mother passed on, we have all sort of said, oh, my gosh, what happens if. And it seems to me that I think it was the gentleman from New York said, let us not be chasing people away, but we have to make sure the product works. And your comments trouble me again because you say we don't know what it is going to look like 30 years from now, and we don't. So what advice do you give to somebody today about the worthiness of investing in these products? It looks to me like it still makes sense from a financial planning standpoint, but you know, we heard from the first panel about mishaps that have occurred to put it lightly, and we all want to guard against that from happening. Mr. Kreidler. Congressman, we are going to clearly be challenged, whether it is at the federal level or at the State level in trying to have a perfect match as to what rates should be charged when that policy is sold as to what, in fact, will be the ultimate payout and what responsibilities we have. So, because you are building it on what you are predicting on what we know today will be the case tomorrow. And quite frankly, we don't know, and that is one of the uncertainties that you have in the long-term care market. You just plain can't make that hard prediction, and it has made the pricing of long-term care insurance products that much more difficult and challenging but certainly something that offers value to people, certainly some people, not all people if you are low income, obviously you probably shouldn't be buying it. And that is a suitability issue, and if you have a lot of income, there may be other types of products that are out there that might substitute for long-term care insurance. Mr. Walden. All right. And but your recommendation is that Congress, if it is to adopt a nationwide standard, should first look to the good work of the States and especially the 30 States that are in the compact for the floor, for the minimum, and then not override State's authority in this area? Mr. Kreidler. States will still have authority for consumer protection, but this would be one way of raising the standard nationally by having the long-term care standards that are adopted as part of the compact, and by virtue of that you are going to be in a position then to make sure that you have made sure that the products that are out there are going to be ones that are going to be better suited for the market. Mr. Walden. On the next panel we are going to hear from some providers, some of whom have virtually no complaints and some that have, don't have quite that record, and a lot of that may be from the past. I guess the question I would have from you all, you are the regulators. Right? Of these policies and plans. Correct? In your States. And so what assurance do we have that your compatriots in the regulatory bodies around the country are now taking the steps necessary to ensure that at least the kinds of problems that were identified in the New York Times' story aren't recurring today? Mr. Dilweg. I think, Congressman Walden, we felt the data call was really an important first step to get---- Mr. Walden. Right. Mr. Dilweg [continuing]. A market look, what is happening in 80 percent of the market. Here it has been 18 years since these products are out there. To put it in perspective from just the State of Wisconsin, I have 145,000 policyholders in long-term care. I only get south of 100 complaints a year. So that fits a profile of it is working. Mr. Walden. All right. Mr. Dilweg. And I think---- Mr. Walden. I wish I only got that many complaints. Mr. Dilweg. But I do think there are some clear challenges on how these claims are triggered. You are with a company for 15 years, and you start triggering claims and really digging into the suitability. I think Commissioner Kreidler mentioned it, but one thing we always urge consumers, do not make this decision in a vacuum. Mr. Walden. Right. Mr. Dilweg. When someone shows up on your doorstep, talk to your accountant, there are other financial tools out there. Mr. Walden. Could I hear from the other members, and I have only got a minute left in my time but--for this topic. What assurance? Mr. McCarty. Well, and, again, I think we go back to the comprehensive market investigation that was conducted on Conseco. We have a number of tools available, individually as states and collectively through the National Association, through our Market Analysis Working Group, where individual states can note, can identify potential practices and notify the rest of the states so we can set up a multi-state like was done with Conseco. Mr. Walden. Right. Mr. McCarty. And they are on a very strict monitoring plan at this time. As I said, they have a $10 million fine that will kick in for failure to meet benchmarks for both companies. Everyone in the regulatory community is keenly aware of the business practices of those two companies, Penn Treaty and Conseco, and I can assure you we will be vigilant and diligent in protecting the consumers and monitoring them on a collective basis. Mr. Walden. OK. Sir. Mr. Dinallo. I think you are in a very new product, a young market here, so I don't think it is entirely embarrassing that to some extent there was a learning curve in the New York Times' article and others---- Mr. Walden. Right. Mr. Dinallo [continuing]. Brought this to bear. I have only been in the position for 18 months, but in the last 18 months I can assure you that the consciousness around this product and the consumer protection issues and the market conduct exams and the NAIC committees are really ramped up tremendously. And I think that could sound like we are reactive, but here I think from all the states together it just seems to me that that is kind of indicia of a new product and marketing formation. Mr. Walden. All right. And I know my time has--Mr. Kreidler. Mr. Kreidler. The complaints that we get and the New York Times' article, it is one of those things where when you fully comply, it showed the State of Washington with a significant number of complaints. I think it was because we were vigorous in making sure we registered all of our complaints. So sometimes you get penalized for doing that. Mr. Walden. Right. No good deed goes unpunished. Mr. Kreidler. Exactly. The thing that I saw or see is that the complaints that we get aren't on companies paying on policies, and it is one of making sure that, or it is the issue raised by the rate increases. That is the one that by far is the most painful for me, and some of those early companies were, quite frankly, we didn't understand the assumptions, and they weren't applied. We have learned a lot, as Commissioner Dinallo just pointed out. Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. You have been most generous, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panelists. Appreciate it. Mr. Stupak. Let me just ask two quick questions if I may, and anyone who wants to answer it, go ahead. It is my understanding there are only two states, Florida and California, that have a provision that you can only look back 2 years to deny a claim. Is that right, Mr. McCarty? Mr. McCarty. To the best of my knowledge that is correct. Mr. Stupak. OK. Well, without this 2-year limit, don't you really sort of have an open-ended opportunity for a company to look back to deny a claim that can go all the way back, and as we saw with some of the other folks, some of these people are older, they may be suffering from some dementia. The NAIC has not included any kind of a rule, look back rule in their provisions or in its model. Why not? What can we do to encourage that all states adopt this type of rule? Mr. McCarty. Well, this is certainly in the subject of a spirited debate among regulators. First of all, I think the industry makes a compelling argument that in no case should you allow for fraud to be perpetrated in the issuance of a policy or in the payment of a claim. The counter-veiling side of that, however, is these folks who buy into these contracts and they go into claim, they are generally in poor physical health and have, not of sound mind and are in no position---- Mr. Stupak. To argue. Yes. Mr. McCarty [continuing]. To provide that evidence. Florida has been very successful in pursuing that. Unfortunately, I think there is, I think it is a reasonable debate to have. I think reasonable men and women can differ as to whether or not, what is the most important public policy issue with regard to payment of claims, whether or not we should use our resources and bear out fraud wherever it is, but in a case of a senior product such as long-term care, we believe that the better public policy issue is to err on the side of someone who is in their 80s or 90s filing a claim would be very difficult for them to go to Court and make a case as to what they knew at the time they entered into the contract. That would be my preference, and I think this is going to be an ongoing debate as this issue evolves. Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you one more. It seems like the older policies when we first did this long-term care insurance was supposed to wrap around Medicare benefits, you had that 3- day hospital stay. Now people go to their doctor or elsewhere and the doctor is saying, no, that is it. You are going right to assisted living. And these policies don't kick in. So how can we address that? That is the complaint I get the most. Well, I only was at the hospital overnight, and the doctor won't let me go home, and the family is saying I shouldn't go home because I have fallen too many times. But I have this 3-day rule. So how do we address that, Mr. Dilweg? Mr. Dilweg. And I think we have raised it somewhat with the independent review. I find the independent review is very--it works very well currently under what is medically necessary under health insurance. Almost all States have an independent review that says, well, no, this is medically necessary. So I think we are looking at how to implement that in a long-term care policy setting, but you raise some issues. It is not just a physician now making this decision. It could be a variety of different people. So how do we wrap around the issue and make it work, and that is really what we are embarking on right now? Mr. Stupak. Mr. Pomeroy, do you have a question or two? Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, it is very kind of you to give me the courtesy of asking a question. I got a couple. First of all, I just want to express my appreciation to this panel. The grasp, the sophisticated grasp at the Commissioner level of coverage has been very evident in the testimony each of you have offered. I just think about NAIC. You have come a long way, baby, when it comes to long-term care insurance. A nursing home event in a person's life is a catastrophic financial event. Insurance industry responds to those points of risk by trying to create products that can allay the risk through an insurance mechanism. So, this was a fine theoretical exercise we all undertook, and we talked about how regulation has evolved. I think we should also note the industry has put an awful lot of innovation and work and risk, a good deal of financial capital, especially those that want to get it right, and that is not universal, to meet this need. I am very pleased that baby boomers have a better means to protect themselves as a result of all this good work. A couple of questions. One, I think it was Bonnie Burns who mentioned they require now coverage of lesser degrees of care. I guess it was one thing that has changed since looking 20, Jay Inslee talks about looking 25 years out. Care has evolved. It was institutional when I was an Insurance Commissioner. Now it is largely non-institutional but still EDL triggered and all the rest of it. Do most States require now coverages to cover more than the institutionalized nursing home? Mr. Dilweg. I think what you are seeing, Congressman Pomeroy, is evolution in the benefits as well. I think one of the problems was claims were coming in that were only for nursing home care, but as we institute our Partnership Plan in Wisconsin, you do get into the reciprocal questions of your policy was bought in California; you are looking at the state, now not insurance issues but the State Health Department definitions of licensed facilities or licensed assisted living. And so there is a whole ongoing reciprocal discussion that we go through, an exercise that we have to go through if that policy then, they trigger it in Wisconsin, how do we match up to California. And that is my Department of Health and Family Services. So but it does really trigger off the State licensing standards, which differ, as you know, throughout all the States. Mr. Pomeroy. Is there an evolution of product to a cash benefit so even if you are paying care in the home or something that you have got a better array of protection given the kind of medical services you need? Mr. McCarty. You are absolutely right, Congressman. There has been an evolution away from having traditional nursing home care to other sites who are being, delivering those services, including home health services, and the most recent iteration of the model does require services other than nursing home. And you are seeing the marketplace respond in that way by offering a number of products out there, including home healthcare. Mr. Pomeroy. Good. On the notion we tinkered with non- forfeiture benefit, in light of the tremendously pre-funded dimension of this premium, but on the other hand that really drew, drove affordability questions, stripping away the coverage for people who needed it but could no longer afford it. This business of in case of significant rate increase, you are going to have a partial paid out benefit, or you are getting a chance to go back in and negotiate down the coverage that you have in order to stabilize rates. I think these are very interesting concepts. Have other states tried what California tried here, and what is the experience? Mr. Dilweg. It is our requirement in Wisconsin, it is something that I think is a very unique benefit to long-term care. Even if you did not opt into the non-forfeiture benefit, you have the opportunity to get even your full payment back upfront. So it is a model that we could easily give back to you, how many states have adopted that fully. Mr. Pomeroy. Have you found rate shock in your State as a result of this protection? Mr. Dilweg. I haven't seen any different rate activity because of this. Mr. Pomeroy. I have a question for the New York Commissioner on partnership, New York being one of the four states that had the partnership experienced through the '90s. I am wondering if your, it is our hope that we are going to save some Medicaid dollars, even while we develop means for people to protect themselves. Are you seeing after 10 years in the New York Partnership experience any data that is going to be of interest to us? Mr. Dinallo. Well, I think that it is starting, and I think that it will get more so as more people participate in the program. I know the GAO report was slightly skeptical about what the savings would be, but our Department of Health people and the Insurance Department respectfully, we don't really disagree. We just disagree about the future, I think. I think as you get more people into the program and New York is committed to spend millions of dollars a year to try to promote and recruit people into the program, you will see savings to the Medicaid Program. I think it is definitely an economics of scale issue that is important to reach before you see those savings. Mr. Pomeroy. Just one closing comment. Commissioner Kreidler and I, in light of our prior work experience, each has responsibilities. I need to help Congress understand insurance commissioners, but he has the tougher job, help the insurance commissioners understand Congress. Thank you very much. I commend the panel again. Mr. Stupak. Well, thank you. Mr. Shimkus, any more questions? Well, thank you, and thank you to this panel, and thank you very much for what you do on behalf of your constituents and all of our constituents. Thank you. On our third panel of witnesses we have Mr. Thomas M. ``Buck'' Stinson, who is President of Genworth Long Term Care at Genworth Financial; Mr. Thomas E. Samoluk, who is Vice- President and Counsel for Government Affairs at John Hancock; Mr. John Wells, who is Senior Vice-President for Long-Term Care at Conseco; and Mr. Cameron B. Waite, who is Executive Vice President for Strategic Operations at Penn Treaty Network of America. Gentleman, it is the policy of this Subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. Please be advised witnesses have the right under the Rules of the House to be advised by counsel during their testimony. Do you wish to be represented by counsel? Mr. Waite. I have counsel here. Mr. Stupak. OK. Mr. Waite. Just in the back. Mr. Stupak. We will go for no right now, but if you want to talk to counsel before you answer a question, please; we will just ask you to identify counsel at that time and then we will move forward. OK. So indicating you do not wish to be represented by counsel, at this time I am going to ask you to please rise, raise you right hand, and take the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Stupak. Let the record reflect the witnesses replied in the affirmative. They are now under oath. We will begin with an opening statement. You have 5 minutes. A longer one will be submitted for the record. Mr. Stinson, on my left, we will start with you, sir. Would you want to begin with your opening statement? STATEMENT OF THOMAS ``BUCK'' STINSON, PRESIDENT, GENWORTH LONG TERM CARE Mr. Stinson. Thank you, Mr. Stupak, members of the Committee. Thank you for extending an invitation to Genworth Financial to testify at today's hearing. My name is Buck Stinson. I am the President of Genworth Financial's Long-Term Care Insurance business. Genworth Financial provides retirement income, life, long-term care, and mortgage insurance products to more than 15 million customers in 25 countries. Our organization helped to pioneer long-term care insurance back in 1974, and today we are the largest, most experienced long-term care insurance provider in the country. We currently provide service to over 1.3 million policyholders and pay approximately $3 million per day in long-term care benefits. Over the last 34 years Genworth has paid a combined total of $5.6 billion in claim benefits. In addition, we are very proud of the fact that we recently became the exclusive provider of long-term care insurance products to AARP members. Long-term care insurance is important for four reasons. First it generally provides peace of mind in a time of shifting and uncertain economic burdens. Second, it represents a critical part of a sound retirement plan, protecting assets, and preserving funding sources for future family needs. Third, it can serve to increase the number of care options available to policyholders and their families. And finally, care coordination and other information resources provide value beyond the payment of financial benefits. We also know that this insurance has helped to protect Medicaid dollars for those who need it most. Long-term care insurance has evolved from nursing home coverage in the '70s and '80s to providing care across all settings today. Only 75 percent of our initial claims were filed for services in policyholders' homes. The issue of how policyholders claims were processed and paid is of interest to this Committee. You should know that over 95 percent of our claims are approved. Claims are turned down only if they aren't covered in the policy. No one person at Genworth can deny a claim. If a claim is denied, a secondary review of the denial is conducted by a specialist who has not been previously involved in the claim, and a policyholder can contest the decision through an appeals process. Appeals are often reviewed by our chief medical officer, who is a physician and helps to ensure that all claim decisions are accurate and appropriate. As the largest provider of this important insurance, we appreciate our responsibility in remaining strong financially and in the way we manage our company. Our business growth tragedy involves originating our own policies versus acquiring blocks. This has helped to preserve the continuity of our risk management disciplines. Our 34 years of experience provides unique insights for predicting morbidity and mortality trends, and we take a conservative approach toward these risk factors to provide for stability over the long term. Our experience has shown extremely high retention rates from our policyholders, higher than originally anticipated. This higher persistency was the primary driver of our decision to recently request our first rate increase in 34 years, an amount of 8 to 12 percent on policies introduced up through 1997, which would increase the average policyholders' payments by less than $20 a month. We are confident that our current policies will adequately provide for the long-term care needs of policyholders 20 to 30 years from now. The policies we sell today include coverage for a wide array of care providers including formal and informal homecare and flexible definitions of assisted care facilities to accommodate the change in care delivery environment. Additionally, our policies contain an alternate care benefit that allows for payment of services not specifically covered within the policy benefit language. Examples include in-home safety devices, community-based services, and medical response devices. In terms of how Federal and State governments could support broader adoption and penetration of private long- term care insurance policies, consistency matters. Whether it be a broader adoption of the NAIC model regulations at the State level or consistency through a federal charter. Either approach would be helpful from both a consumer and public policy standpoint. In closing, I would like to underscore to this committee that this is a very important insurance product that is a critical part of the public and private solution to America's long-term care dilemma. We appreciate our obligations to market and administer this product appropriately, knowing that our customers have provided us with precious dollars on the promise that we will uphold our commitments. Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stinson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.144 Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Samoluk. Am I saying that right? Mr. Samoluk. Samoluk. Mr. Stupak. Samoluk. All right. You are the Vice-President and General Counsel for Government Affairs at John Hancock. Your testimony, please, sir. STATEMENT OF THOMAS SAMOLUK, VICE PRESIDENT AND COUNSEL, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Mr. Samoluk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to Ranking Member Shimkus for being here on what we view as an important hearing. I am Tom Samoluk, Vice-President for Government Relations at John Hancock Life Insurance Company. As one of the largest insurers in both the group and individual long-term care insurance markets, we are pleased to have the opportunity to be here today. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Congressman Pomeroy for his leadership on the Cafeteria Bill as well as in the last Congress, his leadership on the Partnership Legislation. Thank you, Congressman. John Hancock was chartered in 1862. We have been writing LTC insurance since 1987, and any product we sell must be worthy of our brand and reflect our reputation in the marketplace. Private insurance will play an increasingly important role as a source of funding for long-term care needs in the coming years. We will continue to develop products that meet consumer needs and deliver on our promise at claim time. Our commitment to protecting the interests of our more than one million in force LTC insurance policyholders and all future policyholders is unequivocal. The laws and regulations governing the industry at the federal and State level have kept pace for the benefit of consumers and the marketplace. Our company actively supports the current NAIC model, LTC Insurance Act, and regulation. In fact, John Hancock has demonstrated a history of proactively meeting new NAIC consumer protections throughout the nation in advance of their ultimate State adoption, and I give you an example. We have already begun the process of launching an independent third-party review for newly-issued policies in advance of NAIC or States requiring us to do so. Under our provision the decision of the independent third party is binding on us, John Hancock, but not on the policyholder, and we pay the entire cost. We have chosen to proactively implement this enhancement now to give our policyholders additional peace of mind. Our goal is to continue to deliver the highest level of service and advice at the time of claim. The following facts briefly tell our claim story. We have paid more than $8.1 billion in LTC insurance claims to over 40,000 policyholders since 1987. In 2007, alone more than 17,000 policyholders received benefits, and we paid more than $375 million in LTC claims. We currently hold more than $8.1 billion in LTC insurance reserves to pay for current and future claims. We survey 100 percent of our claimants following benefit eligibility determination, and this year to date the vast majority of those who responded rated their overall level of satisfaction with our performance as very satisfied or satisfied. But the statistics I have given you are only part of the story. Our claims process ensures and delivers a superior policyholder experience. Customer advocacy is absolutely central to our claims model. Policyholders and their family members are assisted throughout the claims process by skilled, licensed healthcare practitioners to ensure that they optimize all the available services and benefits offered by the coverage. Product design has evolved to reflect the change in long- term care delivery environment and the changing needs of consumers as we have heard today. John Hancock has been a leader in innovative product design. We also believe that the Federal Government can, in fact, expand its role to encourage more individuals to protect themselves with private long-term care insurance and to reduce the drain on Federal and State Medicaid budgets. We look forward to the enactment of Congressman Pomeroy's bill on the Cafeteria Plan, and that also relates to flexible spending accounts. We believe that consumers would be better served with an operational interstate compact and ultimately an optional federal charter that would allow for uniform policies without variations from State to State. At John Hancock it is our mission to ensure that our long- term care insurance policyholders are, in fact, protected for the long term. We are committed to maintaining and justifying consumer confidence in this increasingly important retirement protection product. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Shimkus, we thank you for the opportunity to appear today and would be glad to answer any questions that the panel has. [The prepared statement of Mr. Samoluk follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.163 Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Wells, your statement if you would, please, on behalf of Conseco Insurance, long-term care at Conseco Incorporated. STATEMENT OF JOHN WELLS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LONG TERM CARE, CONSECO, INC. Mr. Wells. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Stupak and Ranking Member Shimkus. My name is John Wells. I have over 25 years of diversified experience in the insurance industry with companies like Chubb, Jefferson Pilot, and Mutual of Omaha. Since December of 2006, I have been Senior Vice President for Long-Term Care at Conseco. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today to discuss the important issue of long-term care insurance for Americans. As one of the largest providers of long-term care insurance, Conseco's mission is to be a leading provider of financial security for life, health, and retirement needs of our middle class Americans. These policies are vital in an aging America. As this Committee knows, skyrocketing medical and long-term care costs are placing a growing burden on consumers as well as on taxpayers who publicly finance protection programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Americans are rightly concerned about whether their accumulated savings will adequately cover their possible needs for long-term care. With the baby boomer generation rapidly reaching retirement age, Americans living longer, corporate retirement benefits being curtailed, and public finance programs under stress, consumers should be encouraged to take initiative to plan for their own futures. This is especially true for America's middle class, those who are not eligible for Medicaid but cannot afford to fully pay for their long-term care needs. Their untenable choice is to spend down their assets, sacrificing their financial legacy before turning to government assistance. To meet this urgent need, Conseco has developed a wide range of products to give consumers the peace of mind that their needs for long-term care will be met. We fully understand that we can only serve this need if consumers know us to be reliable partners. In short, we must demonstrate every day the value of this product and earn the trust of consumers. The facts show that their trust would be well-placed. Conseco today has nearly 600,000 active long-term care policyholders. We pay claims to between 24,000 and 25,000 policyholders a month for a total of three-quarters of a billion dollars per year. Although we pay over 98 percent of submitted claims, there are instances in which we make mistakes. Some of these mistakes are caused by problems with systems and processes, some involve human error. We take full responsibility for our mistakes, and I assure you we have been working diligently over the past 18 months to improve our claims handling to serve our customers better. We are seeing very positive results in both service levels and claim accuracy and remain committed to the course we set in late 2006, to achieve industry best practices throughout our operation. We have also stepped up our training procedures for field personnel and call centers alike to do a better job of selling the right policies in the right way and to ensure that once sold these policies are administered in a timely and correct manner. Let me be clear, let me be very clear that Conseco is committed to being part of the solution to what otherwise could be a crisis in long-term care as the population ages. To that end we are interested in working with this committee and our regulators to find ways to assure that Americans can live their lives in dignity, supported by a private healthcare insurance system that provides what they need at a cost they can afford. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on our views on this important issue of long-term care insurance in our nation. We appreciate the critical oversight this committee provides and look forward to continuing to work with you. I would be happy to respond to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.174 Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Waite, you are Executive Vice President for Strategic Operations at Penn Treaty Network America. Your opening statement, please, sir. STATEMENT OF CAMERON WAITE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGIC OPERATIONS, PENN TREATY NETWORK AMERICA Mr. Waite. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and also Ranking Member Shimkus. Mr. Stupak. Is that mike on? Mr. Waite. I believe it is. Mr. Stupak. Can you pull it closer? Mr. Waite. Sure. Mr. Stupak. There you go. Thanks. Mr. Waite. And also to Mr. Pomeroy. We are happy to see you here. As you said, my name is Cameron Waite. I am Executive Vice President of Penn Treaty American Corporation, and we, too, are pleased to participate in this hearing today. Penn Treaty has been an innovator, a specialist, and a provider of long-term care insurance in the United States for over 35 years. We serve approximately 150,000 policyholders, and our policies are sold in 43 States, and we administer policies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Penn Treaty provides multiple products and the broadest spectrum of long-term care insurance selections in order to meet consumers' needs. Penn Treaty has a very strong claims paying record for our policyholders. Our reputation in this regard has led us to remain competitive in a market that is dominated by mega-insurers. Over the last 3 decades we have paid $2 billion in claims to our policyholders, having paid $194 million in claims in 2007, alone. We have seen a radical decline in terms of claims denials with only less than 5 percent of claim submissions having been denied for any reason over the past several years. We find that our policyholders are satisfied with their long-term care insurance, as evidenced by the fact that while the industry average of claims-related complaints has actually been steadily increasing over recent years, our policyholder complaints have declined by over 60 percent over the past several years. Penn Treaty has taken steps such that our outstanding litigation is at an all-time low. The company is very pleased with the recent market reviews by State insurance regulators, including Pennsylvania, which was mentioned this morning, which has been completed several weeks ago. We take the findings of which from these, and we use them as a learning tool in order to look at further areas of improvements on what we can do better. As a pioneer in the long-term care industry Penn Treaty has noted emerging trends and has always honored its commitments. For example, since the early 1990s, Penn Treaty has paid all its assisted living facility claims under its existing policies, which didn't even exist when these policies were originally issued. Penn Treaty is unique among most long-term care insurance providers in that we have an older block of long-term care insurance policies. Not older ages, but rather older policies themselves that are becoming eligible for claims in large numbers. We have made substantial improvements in our claims handling practices and in dealing with the challenges presented by an older block of policies. These older policies have had claims that have not conformed with actuarial projections because assumptions regarding lapse rates, mortality, morbidity have all evolved. Additionally, in response to industry issues including those noted by the Subcommittee, the company continues to implement and improve best practices with respect to claims handling. Some steps taken over the last several years include adopting the most rigid of State requirements for claim payment timing following eligibility determination. We currently pay 98 percent of all nationwide claims within 15 days. More than 99 percent of all claims within 30 days. We have implemented a robust audit program for claim payments which generate secondary review in over 10 percent of all transactions. We have automated system improvements in order to safeguard against errors in payments. We substantially improved the caliber of our claims examiners and the training programs that we have implemented. We strengthened our overall customer support area in order to accurately answer policy- related questions. And finally, in the event of an unlikely claim denial, we provide the very specific reason in writing to the policyholder as to why that claim was denied, offering the opportunity to provide more information and provide an instruction on their right to appeal if they disagree with our decision. We remain very sympathetic to the needs of our customers holding older policies, especially those that have been impacted by premium rate increases and have taken numerous and very difficult steps over the last few years to make sure that all policyholders are protected for the future. These include offering options to mitigate the impact rate increases. We have established over $1 billion in reserves for future claim payments. In addition, the company has purchased 100 percent reinsurance with a global reinsure to protect all policies written prior to 2002, and most policies written since that time. Look into the future and the need for long-term care insurance is more and more evident every day. Our over 250 employees are dedicated and passionate about the value they bring to our American seniors. We have done much to better serve our policyholders, and we recognize that there is more to do. We are confident that Penn Treaty will continue to be a key player in this business and have worked through the inevitable issues noted as the industry has expanded. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and would welcome any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Waite follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.184 Mr. Stupak. Well, thank you, and we are going to have some votes but let us see if we can get our questions in before we have the series of votes coming up. Mr. Waite, you just said that you pay 98 percent of the claims yet all the data we have seen nationally on long-term care rates are just around 4 percent. So it should say you are probably actually better than the other companies. So I guess I am a little confused on how you come up with that. Everything they show us it is about 4 percent. You are saying you are paying 98 percent, so that would be about 2 percent in rejection. Mr. Waite. Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, our denial rate has been less than 5 percent, which is right in the range of-- -- Mr. Stupak. OK. Mr. Waite [continuing]. What you are saying. The 98 percent that I referred to is once the claim eligibility is actually able to be achieved. At that point in time---- Mr. Stupak. So the hurdle is to get over the claims eligibility. Right? Mr. Waite. Well, we don't find it to be a hurdle. We actually are looking, we typically see eligibility decisions that can be made anywhere from 24 hours to approximately 12 days. At that time we make the decision. Once that information is in, we will be able to move forward with our claim decision typically within 24 to 48 hours. Mr. Stupak. Well, let me ask you this. John Hancock testified here today and other companies; they have adopted a procedure of independent third-party review of denied claims. Does your company do that? Will you commit to doing that? Mr. Waite. We actually admire John Hancock for doing that. We believe that is very proactive. We, too, have supported that effort with the NAIC. I will note that one of the challenges-- -- Mr. Stupak. Yes, but do you do it in your company? Do you have third-party review? Mr. Waite. We do not, and the reason we do not yet is because the states haven't formulated a plan where it can equitably be put in place. We are very much in support of it, however. Mr. Stupak. Well, how many states have to have this plan before you will do it? I would think if it is a good practice, you would want to do it. Mr. Waite. It is an excellent practice, Mr. Chairman. We do believe, however, that it is much more important for the company to be able to give the opportunity for internal appeal and make the correct decision, no matter what that is, prior to whatever to it ever even needing to get to that point. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Wells, let me ask you the same question. Do you have a third-party review of denied claims? Mr. Wells. No, sir, we do not. Mr. Stupak. Will you commit to doing one? Mr. Wells. We are in the process of working with an industry association. This is a complex issue, we believe, because of the number of disparate policies, but we are supporting the industry and working with the industry to ultimately arrive at a conclusion. We do also have appeal process that a policyholder can go through to appeal, and we have a panel now we have implemented since early, mid 2007. It includes a medical director and others. So we are making changes to more proactively adjudicate claims. Mr. Stupak. Well, you both testified it is a good idea, and you support other people doing it, but you are not doing it yourself. And Mr. Wells, I am a little concerned because the New York Times article that came out last year reported that current and former employees of your company had testified under oath that they were not allowed to call policyholders when they needed more information to make a claim. So if you don't have third-party review, if that is true that when people call they can't get information on how to go about making a claim or the information they need to make a claim, how is your company--it is just not making sense here. Mr. Wells. Right. Well, we do send claim forms out, and we are absolutely supportive of having the claim reviewed. What we have done since---- Mr. Stupak. But this is just people asking for information so they can make the claim. Mr. Wells. Absolutely. Mr. Stupak. That is what the New York Times article said, and our previous witness said when he had your company, Conseco, too, he said, he just asked where he had to get information. Mr. Wells. Right. Mr. Stupak. And the Commissioners had to---- Mr. Wells. Yes, sir. Could I comment on that? Mr. Stupak. Yes. Sure. He had to call someone else to even get a claim form for you guys. Mr. Wells. Well, prior to 2007 we had a very cumbersome process. Our systems, I think Mark Cohen testified in the first panel, part of the issues were some of the processes and systems that long-term care has because of claim systems. Claims are still very new because the industry is very new. Putting in claims systems and processes, which we have been doing, user-friendly claim systems and processes, which we have been doing since mid-2007, we have completely revamped that process as a result of---- Mr. Stupak. But to completely revamp, why wouldn't you put in a third-party review if you think it is such a good idea? If you made all these changes, why wouldn't you put that critical change in there? Mr. Wells. And that is under consideration at this point working with our third party. But we have now done customer reach-out. Before we were having claims come in and in some cases they do get stuck. We are now completely doing a customer reach-out program when a claim comes in to call the consumer to make sure we have got all the information to let them know where the claim is. That has been implemented in mid-2007. So we have completely revamped that and are working with the other states to make sure that we are in compliance with claim timeliness and processing. Mr. Stupak. Now, I asked the question earlier of the other panel, and I will go right to Mr. Shimkus in a minute, but let me ask this. You are all publicly-held corporations, and you have responsibilities to your shareholders, yet you have to keep reserve. So is this such a good model to be offering long- term care? Where is the responsibility? To the shareholder or to the client who holds a long-term care contract? Anyone want to comment on that? Some sites suggest that maybe a mutual company might be a better company to hold these long-term care contracts. Mr. Stinson. Mr. Stinson. Chairman, yes. I will comment, because I think you have framed it as there is a friction between holding reserves and---- Mr. Stupak. Tension. Sure. Mr. Stinson [continuing]. Facing into Wall Street, which represents as a proxy for our shareholders, I would argue that, in fact, there is a lot of pressure from our shareholders to make sure that we do have adequate reserves. Mr. Stupak. Right. Mr. Stinson. So there is as much tension from our shareholders and our investors and making sure that we are sound financially and that we are adequately reserved to take claims in the future as regulators. Mr. Stupak. What amount of reserves should you hold as a rule of thumb? Is there a rule of thumb? Mr. Stinson. Yes. Our, it is statutorily required to have adequate reserves based on actuarial assumptions, and that is governed by each of the States that you sited in. Mr. Stupak. And you offer in all 50 states, right? Mr. Stinson. Yes. Mr. Stupak. OK. Ms. Samoluk, do you want to answer any of it? Mr. Samoluk. I would agree with what Mr. Stinson said there. We at John Hancock have been selling products, life insurance and annuities with a long tail for a long time, and we have been able to find that balance between ensuring that you have the reserves, which, as was mentioned, are statutorily required. We also meet the fiduciary obligation to our shareholders. Mr. Stupak. OK. My time is up. Mr. Shimkus, questions. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to go back for Mr. Samoluk on, you said the word that I asked in the previous panel. So you support an optional Federal charter? And that would be one way. A second way would be to make sure the States are developing into compacts. Is that how I heard your opening statement? Mr. Samoluk. Right. We are supportive of the interstate compact and look forward to that being operational. And with regard to the optional federal charter, we think that many of the regulators, the regulators in the states where we have domiciled companies, do a terrific job, but there is uneven regulation around the country. And we think that for the sake of consumers, the industry, the marketplace that an optional federal charter, and, again, it is, it would be an optional type of situation, would even out the regulation of the industry. Mr. Shimkus. And that is the only reason why I followed up with that is because when we had the Insurance Commissioners there, that is the elephant in the room sometimes when we get in talks about insurance issues here at the national level, and many of you were sitting on that panel, so I just wanted to follow up on that. In your respective companies, where is your capital being invested now as far as is it data information services or obviously we have issues? Where are you investing to have those products really appealing to the consumers? Mr. Stinson. Mr. Stinson. Yes. I think we learned early on that one of our key investments is going to have to be in our claims organization, and for our long-term care business we have a dedicated organization of over 250 benefit analysts that do nothing but long-term care claims, benefit adjudication. We have invested in systems to make sure that we understand as the policies have changed over time, that the adjudication can be appropriately applied there. So a big part of our capital is invested in our claims administration because that is really the moment of truth for us. In terms of how we price for stability going long-term, we do take a relatively conservative assumption around morbidity and mortality trends, as well as investment yields, and we have dropped our persistency assumption down to 1 percent. So there is not much between one and zero. Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Samoluk. Mr. Samoluk. I think that we would similarly say we are conservative in our, and prudent in our investment activity. On where we are putting in the money, in the claims process I think in general one frustration that consumers have is that when they call up a vendor or the company with which they are doing business, they don't get a human being. They are passed from press five, press seven, to get whatever the service is. One of the things we put a lot of emphasis on are highly- trained care coordinators so when, at the onset of the claims process, via an 800 number provided in the policy, the policyholder or their family member is going to talk to a licensed healthcare practitioner, either a nurse, licensed nurse or a social worker, and they are likely to be on the phone with that person for 30 minutes, if not more, to run through all the benefits, their policy, and that begins the process. And we think that is important with the frustrations that I think many of us feel. We think that is important to establish that type of consumer-friendly approach at a very difficult time for policyholders and or their families. Mr. Shimkus. I only have 1 minute left, and there are votes on the floor. Let me ask this question. How do we handle, how do we deal with the senior citizen who moves across state lines, definitional changes so when they would call to make a claim, and we will just go to Mr. Wells and Mr. Waite, when they call to make a claim but now they are in a different state, the state may have a different definition as to what is covered, how would that happen? What would we do? Mr. Wells. Right. Well, when a policyholder moves across state lines, they obviously still have the same contract that they had before they moved. Our service standards are based on the state in which they reside, the claims process, timeliness, or processing and what have you, but which is centralized in one location in terms of call center and handling phone calls promptly, turn around times, and what have you. Mr. Shimkus. Does that cause a little bit more disruption? We all were here in the morning with Mr. Bode making the--no one wants to have a Mr. Bode as a constituent who is complaining or as a client. Mr. Wells. Absolutely. What we have done is invested more, similar to my cohorts to my right, in people processing systems, people on the phone, more people on the phone to handle calls, better trained people, because we have heard throughout the day the complexity of this product. Having people better understand the product on the front end and proactive at the time they need it, at claim time and proactively calling out is one way to handle that whole area I think. The other thing is to make sure that they have all the claim forms. That was mentioned earlier. Making sure they have the claim forms, and we also have hired a team of nurses to make sure that the care is appropriate, to make sure that the care is utilized, the contract is not exhausted, to make sure that the care is there when they need it. And so we have hired teams of nurses to work with our policyholders. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And just briefly, Mr. Waite, if you want to add. Mr. Waite. Sure. Yes, Mr. Shimkus. Our policies also are designed to be completely portable. What we have done is because we recognize that various states may have different requirements for timeliness of payment, we have adopted the most rigid of requirements so that we have uniformity, so that our policyholders do not suffer as a result of whether they move or not, even if they have been issued a policy in one state versus a policyholder in another state. Because the investments that we made in our claims personnel and our claims systems and also by the way our actuarial resources, because this older block of business is really becoming the troublesome area in long-term care. New business has done very, very well, and I think all of our members will recognize the value that the NAIC has given to us. Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Walden for questions. Mr. Walden. Yes, and I will try and be pretty quick here, Mr. Chairman, because I know we have votes. So, Mr. Waite, I would be curious to know if the other members of the panel agree, are all of you writing your plans to the highest standards that are out there that States have, or does it matter? There are obviously these NAIC model code requirements and all. Are you writing your plans to those levels? Mr. Waite. We are. Mr. Wells. In terms of claims management? Mr. Walden. Yes. Mr. Wells. We are writing within the State requirements and in some---- Mr. Walden. State by state or---- Mr. Wells. Which vary by state. And where the states may not have standards, we adhere to the State of Domicile, which is Pennsylvania, which is the sixth most rigid standard State. Mr. Walden. All right. Sir. Mr. Samoluk. Yes, Congressman. We adhere to those NIA standards throughout the country, whether they have been adopted or not. Mr. Walden. All right. Mr. Stinson. Mr. Stinson. Yes. The same. Mr. Walden. OK. So you adhere to those model standards, and Mr. Waite, you indicated you do as well? Mr. Waite. Yes, we do. As a matter of fact, one thing that is very important about it is that prior to states actually adopting the Model Act, there is, there was a lot of thought put into the, by the actuarial community about how to deal with premium rate increases in the future or to potentially avoid them. Mr. Walden. Right. Mr. Waite. The Model Act embedded a requirement to have a margin for moderately-adverse experience that inevitably can come along. We have adopted that since day one every before any states actually put that in or elected it because today only about 25 states have even adopted the Model Act, as you know. We have adopted that pricing network across all 50 states. Mr. Walden. So do you believe that the insurance industry can meet the projected needs of the senior population in the years to come? We heard from the Insurance Commissioners some question about this is such a new product, and there is much in the rearview mirror. Are you all comfortable that you can price this in a way that when I am at that age, which, well, that won't be that far, I guess, but when others are that are younger that the funds will be there to take care of what was promised? Mr. Waite. Mr. Waite. I think probably I can help that because I think on the new pricing for new policies and in our case we define that from 2002, forward, the pricing standards have been very good for that. The protections for consumers have been very good based upon the NAIC's work as the Commissioners spoke to earlier. The difficulty arises based upon the old blocks of business, and we understand this better than anybody because we were one of the first out there. The evolution of the industry, the ability to monitor what is happening with new trends, the payment of assisted living facilities. Mr. Walden. Right. Mr. Waite. It used to be that a claim could go 2\1/2\ years. Today it can go 20 years. That was never contemplated and to the extent a company like ours honors that as part of the policy, that becomes very problematic. Mr. Walden. And I know we have to wrap this up. Do you all agree with that? Do you all share the same view? Mr. Wells. We agree. Mr. Stinson. I will just add I think it is---- Mr. Walden. I am not sure your mike is on. Mr. Stinson. It is on. I will just move it closer. Mr. Walden. There you go. Thank you. Mr. Stinson. I think it is important for the Committee to understand the single largest driver of the financial performance on those older blocks dealt with one assumption, which was the voluntary lapse expectation. Mr. Walden. What does that mean? Mr. Stinson. Meaning the assumption that we build in that says consumers are going to voluntarily stop paying premiums. Mr. Walden. I see. Mr. Stinson. Which would terminate the policy. In the products that were built in the '70s and '80s, that expectation was for our business around 5 percent. The actual experience we have seen is only 1 percent. Mr. Walden. Wow. Mr. Stinson. And so the products that we sell and have sold for the last 5 to 10 years really have radically dropped that rate. The product we sell today has a 1 percent voluntary lapse rate assumption. Mr. Walden. How does that compare just real quickly to life insurance policies? What is the voluntary drop rate there? Mr. Stinson. Health insurance would be 10, 15 percent or higher. Mr. Walden. OK. And life insurance? Mr. Stinson. Life insurance would probably be as well high, single digits. Mr. Walden. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our panelists. Mr. Stupak. Let me just follow up on that. If your retention rate was 99 percent, only 1 percent drop, and then does that justify large increases in premiums then to bring those more expensive, older policies to be able to pay them? Mr. Waite, your company asked for a 73 percent increase on one. I think, Mr. Wells, you guys had 30 to 50 percent. It seems like, since you have a larger retention rate, you have to make up the money because you were under-priced to begin with. Right? Mr. Wells. That is part of the issue. The older, on the older policies where the lapse rate that was being discussed is lower, there are claims, more claims. So since the claims in the future are higher, that drives some of the pricing issues that we have had as an industry. Mr. Stupak. Well, if you don't get your increase, let us say it goes up 20 percent, if your rate goes up, pumps like 20 percent, do people start dropping off then? Is that one of the reasons---- Mr. Wells. That could be one result that policyholders because of the increases are dropping off. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Pomeroy, do you have a quick question? We only have a few minutes left on the floor, and we will---- Mr. Pomeroy. Right. I will be quick, and thank you again for your courtesy. Mr. Wells, what percentage of the book, what percentage of business on your books was acquired through acquisition versus direct writing? Mr. Wells. We have right now with Conseco about 150,000 policies, and with Bankers about 350,000 policies in force. Mr. Pomeroy. So what percentage did you write? What percentage did you buy books of business from other writers? Mr. Wells. With Conseco Senior those were all acquisitions. Bankers is the organically grown block. Mr. Pomeroy. So you have about three-to-one ratio of policies acquired versus policies written. Mr. Wells. Policies acquired one-to-three, three-to-one. Bankers. The organically grown business is three to---- Mr. Pomeroy. And you just spent all this time talking about the identified problems with the older books of business, but you were acquiring through acquisition, these older books, as recently as the last few years. Isn't that correct? Mr. Wells. Right. We---- Mr. Pomeroy. What was the business plan? How in the world were you going to make that work when everyone knew these were bad books of business? Mr. Wells. Well, there were some problems identified actuarially as the business---- Mr. Pomeroy. Did you just fail to do due diligence, or was it your intention to simply bring into the mother ship some of the same flawed practices of rating and claims denial you saw with these little companies you were buying up? Mr. Wells. No, sir. That was not our intent. Mr. Pomeroy. Did you enter a consent agreement with the Commissioners for $10 million contingent fine? Mr. Wells. Well, sir, the fine with the multi-state exam was 2.3 million for 42 states that is now entered into the agreement. If we don't perform claims and complaint handling appropriately, the back end fine could be $10 million. Mr. Pomeroy. So you paid $2.4 million. It could go up to $10 if you don't dramatically change the identified conduct? Mr. Wells. Absolutely and---- Mr. Pomeroy. I would say that I have never in my experience heard of fines approaching this level. I believe that you have disgraced, your company has disgraced the whole notion of long- term care insurance and a lot of good work a lot of people have tried to do. I feel a sense of personal embarrassment that the regulations that I helped develop allowed a company like yours to operate in the way that it did. I would hope that my successors in office, these Insurance Commissioners, have identified the problems and are working with you to make it right. This study group that you talk about, I talked to them in May of '07. Here we are in the summer of '08, and you are still contemplating third-party claims examination. All the rest of it to me is still a very long way to go to write an extraordinarily unacceptable company track record relative to this business. I am sorry our time is up. You deserve a chance to respond. Certainly can put one in the record, but the Chairman and I have to run and vote. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Stupak. Well, thank you, Mr. Pomeroy, and thanks to the witnesses. We could keep you on hold for 40 minutes, but that probably wouldn't solve anything here. So we have four votes, and two of them are 15 minutes, so we would be at least 40, 45 minutes. So I am going to let you go. Thank you very much for being here. We may follow up with some written questions. That concludes all the questioning. I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming today and for your testimony. I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for additional questions for the record. Without objection, the record will remain open. I ask unanimous consent that the contents of our document binder be entered in the record. Without objection, the documents will be entered into the record. That concludes our hearing. Without objection, this meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.230 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.259 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.265 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.266 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.306 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.341 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.362 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.378 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.393 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.394 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.395 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.396 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.397 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.398 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.399 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.400 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.401 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.402 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.403 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.404 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.405 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.406 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.407 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.408 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.409 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.410 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.411 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.412 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.413 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.414 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.415 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.416 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.417 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.418 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.419 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.420 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.421 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.422 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.423 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.424 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.425 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.426 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.427 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.428 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.429 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.430 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.431 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.432 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.433 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.434 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.435 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.436 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.437 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.438 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.439 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.440 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.441 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.442 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.443 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.444 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.445 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.446 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.447 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.448 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.449 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.450 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.451 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.452 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.453 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.454 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.455 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.456 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.457 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.458 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.459 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.460 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.461 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.462 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.463 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.464 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.465 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.466 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.467 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.468 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.469 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.470 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.471 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.472 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.473 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.474 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.475 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.476 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.477 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.478 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.479 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.480 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.481 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.482 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.483 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.484 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.485 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.486 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.487 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.488 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.489 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.490 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.491 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.492 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.493 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.494 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.495 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.496 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.497 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.498 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.499 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.500 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.501 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.502 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.503 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.504 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.505 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.506 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.507 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.508 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.509 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.510 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.511 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.512 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.513 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.514 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.515 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.516 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.517 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.518 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.519 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.520 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.521 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.522 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.523 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.524 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.525 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.526 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.527 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.528 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.529 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.530 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.531 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8423.532