Non-profit Ins Companies and AM Best Ratings

[Arthur Rudnick]

originally posted by GDIAgency

....why would anyone insure with a B rated carrier unless there was no other option? I know I wouldn't want my personal or business insurance with a B rated carrier if I could have it with an A+ IV rated carrier.

MedAmerica is not rated 'B' with AMBest, they're rated 'B++' which is Good & Secure and falls into the 3rd tier of their ratings category, just behind Superior & Excellent. B++ is the 3rd highest category in their ratings. Here's what the ratings means:

"B++ is assigned to companies, that in our opinion, has a good ability to meet their ongoing insurance obligations."

Don't know about you, but I can live with that. How well versed are you in LTCi and the participating carriers? Because for a 100% cash-benefit product, there are no other options.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The baby is coming along well. She is apparently very, very active. Due date is April and I am lamenting losing my freedom. I will be a busy OLD man with lots of company during my retirement years.

And..............
That's a good thing.
Good luck!

 

[billberry12]

Speaking of Genworth, you do realize that they have planned rate increases on most of their policies for the next few years. Rather than 39% at once, they are taking them a little at the time, but over a couple of years, it's going to pinch everyone, Get ready.

 

[csalter]

Speaking of Genworth, you do realize that they have planned rate increases on most of their policies for the next few years. Rather than 39% at once, they are taking them a little at the time, but over a couple of years, it's going to pinch everyone, Get ready.

This may be true about Genworth, but here is an observation as I reviewed their rate increase history data. First, so far the rates increases have been on policies sold in the mid to late 90's and they are still only asking for 18%.

But more importantly for me since I live in the State of California, I have noticed that partnership policies were excluded from the rate increases. California is pretty strict with approving rate increases. However, as Genworth requested their increases as stated above they were approved but only for the individual policies in California. Even with John Hancock, Californa approved 40% increases on individual policies but no approvals for partnership policies. I know that there is no difference in price on buying a partnership policy than an individual policy but it seems to me, in California at least, that there may be an added incentive to buy one of those policies.

 

[yankee466]

This may be true about Genworth, but here is an observation as I reviewed their rate increase history data. First, so far the rates increases have been on policies sold in the mid to late 90's and they are still only asking for 18%.

But more importantly for me since I live in the State of California, I have noticed that partnership policies were excluded from the rate increases. California is pretty strict with approving rate increases. However, as Genworth requested their increases as stated above they were approved but only for the individual policies in California. Even with John Hancock, Californa approved 40% increases on individual policies but no approvals for partnership policies. I know that there is no difference in price on buying a partnership policy than an individual policy but it seems to me, in California at least, that there may be an added incentive to buy one of those policies.

If you were to look at GNW's most recent announcements on LTC rate hikes, you will see that some policies sold in the mid to late 90's, and even as recently as 2003, will be as high as 95%., Other policies sold as recently as 2008 will be as high as 60%. These hikes will be phased in over the next few years, but its not a pretty set of numbers. The 18% number was old news.

 

[csalter]

If you were to look at GNW's most recent announcements on LTC rate hikes, you will see that some policies sold in the mid to late 90's, and even as recently as 2003, will be as high as 95%., Other policies sold as recently as 2008 will be as high as 60%. These hikes will be phased in over the next few years, but its not a pretty set of numbers. The 18% number was old news.

Well, from what I am looking at from the California Office of Insurance, that is not what is shown. It shows increases by state on specific policies and there is nothing that I see as high as 95%. This data goes back to 2007 and is current through 2012. You can look at it yourself.

 

[yankee466]

Well, from what I am looking at from the California Office of Insurance, that is not what is shown. It shows increases by state on specific policies and there is nothing that I see as high as 95%. This data goes back to 2007. You can look at it yourself.

It does not really matter as to where you are looking, but why would you question Genworth's published rate increase documents that have to be presented to all those who are purchasing a LTC from them. Obviously you are looking at outdated information on a web site somewhere. You are looking at their 2011 rate increase disclosure of no more than 18%......suggest you try looking at their 2012 disclosure with up to 95%.

 

[scagnt83]

I am not faulting them for rate increases. I guess it's just seems to me that requesting 39% increases seems high. I compare this to what I saw with Genworth who only requested as much as 18% from the states and many of their policies were older than MedAmerica.

I will admit that there are some companies that I have seen requesting crazier increases like John Hancock who requested from some states increases of 60 and 70 per cent. That's absolutely absurd to me. One can expect increases but they should be reasonable.

You have to view the rate increases in context.

The 39% increase was on group policies. Genworths 18% increase was on individual policies.
It is not a fair comparison.

MedAmerica asked for a 20% increase on their individual line of policies. (basically the same as Genworth)

The premium on the group plans is usually much lower than the individual policies.
So even with the higher % increase, they are still paying much less than individual policy holders.

Also, the 70% increases that Hancock had were on group plans as well. So MedAmerica's competitors had increases of up to 30% higher on similar Group Policies.

MedAmerica is a solid company. And their rate increases are not any higher than their peers on comparable policies.


This is a great example of why using a knowledgeable independent agent is important.
While it is often a good thing for an individual to research on their own.
Without an advisor to put certain things in proper context; it's easy for confusion to occur and decisions to be made on false assumptions.

 

[csalter]

You have to view the rate increases in context.

The 39% increase was on group policies. Genworths 18% increase was on individual policies.
It is not a fair comparison.

MedAmerica asked for a 20% increase on their individual line of policies. (basically the same as Genworth)

The premium on the group plans is usually much lower than the individual policies.
So even with the higher % increase, they are still paying much less than individual policy holders.

Also, the 70% increases that Hancock had were on group plans as well. So MedAmerica's competitors had increases of up to 30% higher on similar Group Policies.

MedAmerica is a solid company. And their rate increases are not any higher than their peers on comparable policies.


This is a great example of why using a knowledgeable independent agent is important.
While it is often a good thing for an individual to research on their own.
Without an advisor to put certain things in proper context; it's easy for confusion to occur and decisions to be made on false assumptions.

No, what this reconfirms for me that you may need to still do your own homework because eceryone even those knowledgeable in their fields may not be aware. You are correct in that some of MedAmerica's individual policies' rates were not increased to 39%. However, that was during 2012 and it also depended on the state. The report I read shows that they asked for 39% increases on individual policies and group policies in 2012 in AZ. Prior to that they were asking for that increase in several states. The report very clearly states if the policies are individual, group or partnership.

As I have always stated on this forum, we as consumers are in your hands. I am a believe of what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you want to know what I am looking at google long term care rate increases. You will see long term care rate history come up first. That is the site of the California Office of Insurance. Then click on long term care rate history- active.

It will show you all of the companies that are currently active in California and their rate history across the country. It is the 2012 edition.

I did find the document on line that Genworth sent out in November about the increases they plan on having over the next few years. I hope it won't be too bad for me.

 

[scagnt83]

No, what this reconfirms for me that you may need to still do your own homework because eceryone even those knowledgeable in their fields may not be aware. You are correct in that some of MedAmerica's individual policies' rates were not increased to 39%. However, that was during 2012 and it also depended on the state. The report I read shows that they asked for 39% increases on individual policies and group policies in 2012 in AZ. Prior to that they were asking for that increase in several states. The report very clearly states if the policies are individual, group or partnership.

As I have always stated on this forum, we as consumers are in your hands. I am a believe of what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you want to know what I am looking at google long term care rate increases. You will see long term care rate history come up first. That is the site of the California Office of Insurance. Then click on long term care rate history- active.

It will show you all of the companies that are currently active in California and their rate history across the country. It is the 2012 edition.

I did find the document on line that Genworth sent out in November about the increases they plan on having over the next few years. I hope it won't be too bad for me.

Again, context.
You are correct that MedAm had SOME 39% increases on indv policies. But that was the minority. Most states were 20% or under.

Compare that to Genworth, who had 11% & 12% increases (in SC and many other states) just 3 years before 18% increases in 2011.

So it is not just the 18% increase you have to consider. It is the 30% cumulative increase.

I am not saying that one is better than the other.
They are both good companies with solid products with similar rate increase histories.
The biggest deciding factor between the two should be the fact that MedAm is a cash benefit and Genworth is not. Some people have a preference between the two, others dont.
But neither should be held out to be out of the norm when it comes to rate increases or stability.

 

[csalter]

You have to view the rate increases in context.

The 39% increase was on group policies. Genworths 18% increase was on individual policies.
It is not a fair comparison.

MedAmerica asked for a 20% increase on their individual line of policies. (basically the same as Genworth)

The premium on the group plans is usually much lower than the individual policies.
So even with the higher % increase, they are still paying much less than individual policy holders.

Also, the 70% increases that Hancock had were on group plans as well. So MedAmerica's competitors had increases of up to 30% higher on similar Group Policies.

MedAmerica is a solid company. And their rate increases are not any higher than their peers on comparable policies.


This is a great example of why using a knowledgeable independent agent is important.
While it is often a good thing for an individual to research on their own.
Without an advisor to put certain things in proper context; it's easy for confusion to occur and decisions to be made on false assumptions.

So did you see those rate increases that MedAmerica is requesting across the country based upon age? They are pretty steep increases. I don't want to say, "Oh to be young again!" with them.