Group rate law must be changed

To the editor:
I read your article on the first page of the Oct. 8-21, 2010 issue (“Insurance alliances slow to start in N.H.”), and I was furious on the “biggest” problem with regards to the rating. I would really like to know whose nest was feathered to get that rule/limitation put in the law. It makes the law useless in every sense.Limiting all ratings to a given group rate versus a 100 group rate will, for example, keep my company from saving between $100 and $200 per month per employee.
Now I am currently paying about $60,000 a year for medical, and that would save me about $800 to $1,600 a month, or on the conservative side, $9,600 a year. We also have dental and life and pay the required unemployment that has gone through the roof, and workman’s comp. All so my employees can have a better-than-average health and benefits plan so that they can have peace of mind. When you add that all up, it is costing me over $120,000 for my employees plus their salaries.So when I saw this I am ready to fight it and get that changed. Simply put, having a group with 100 folks compared to five each makes for a major savings in handling the group and gives a better spread for claims.The law passed in 1995 that eliminated association groups was the worst show of raw power, and it should have been done away with. Also, the current program only allows very restrictive coverage and does not provide out-of-state care. These are additional factors which just show the strength of the insurance lobbyists at the state level. They get away with this because they can and it is too much power for a small group to hold.Clifford A. Metcalfe Jr.
Kingswood Leasing Inc.

Categories: Cook on Concord