only 35 comments on CMS 2024 proposed Rule!

[Jenia63]

Unfortunately, doing it your way would give the agent the chance of casting a diabolical spell on the applicant that would basically compel them to enroll into the plan that agent presented. That would not be fair to the applicant.

 

[Jenia63]

Sorry i don't understand what you mean? I just don't understand how a scope truly protects a senior from over zealous or pushy agents who pressure them into the enrollment, or if they just enroll on a whim,. Holding the app for 48hr for the bene to have an opportunity to change their mind imo would help them, a scope cnlan only stop the appt from ever happening. Somebody said its political. I don't understand thay either

 

[wehotex]

Sorry i don't understand what you mean? I just don't understand how a scope truly protects a senior from over zealous or pushy agents who pressure them into the enrollment, or if they just enroll on a whim,. Holding the app for 48hr for the bene to have an opportunity to change their mind imo would help them, a scope cnlan only stop the appt from ever happening. Somebody said its political. I don't understand thay either[/

 

[wehotex]

I was being facetious. Maybe CMS feels that a prospect gets opportunities to talk with others in his life to get consensus about keeping what he already has, whether it’s a family member, friend or existing agent? In the past, a small amount of agents have been known to submit the app against the prospectt’s wishes after the appointment. It is curious how CMS always assumes the worst behavior.

 

[Yagents]

The govt believes that somehow clients will be smarter 48 hrs from now.....maybe after eating spinach

 

[straightnochaser]

I was being facetious. Maybe CMS feels that a prospect gets opportunities to talk with others in his life to get consensus about keeping what he already has, whether it’s a family member, friend or existing agent? In the past, a small amount of agents have been known to submit the app against the prospectt’s wishes after the appointment. It is curious how CMS always assumes the worst behavior.

Just shows how out of touch and stupid CMS is - We are trained on this, why the f*** would a beneficiary get the opinion of there uncle bert on whether they should enroll or not... morons

 

[FRJ]

Won't the "48-hour" rule protect the senior from overzealous telemarketers? If the telemarketer has to get permission on first contact and then 48 hours later to finish, well goodbye Mr telemarketer! My retention would go up and many less questions about "Should I get a Part C?" throughout the AEPs.
Most of my appointments are in-homes, but I could easily postpone my telephonics for a later time 48 hours or more later after they call in. There would be times like maybe the last few days of the month to meet deadline for the next effective date. But, what exactly is wrong with the 48-hour rule that we couldn't live with?

The whole thing is ridiculous, "overzealous" marketers - I'm not even 65 yet but I get weekly phone calls (robocalls) for Medicare...I play along and get connected to an "agent". They never read off the TPMO disclaimer and whenever I start to question who they are, how to contact them, etc. - they hang up. They don't want you to know who they are because they are enrolling people without following any of the rules. (the phone numbers are spoofed). Without CMS dealing with these shady operators, all the protective rules just harm legitimate agents.

 

[Lee Vena]

There are 24 days left, during the comment period anyone can comment and let CMS know what they think about these proposed rules. So far there are only 35 comments! With the number of members on this forum we could really have our voices heard if everyone goes and posts a comment about the removal of "when practicable" from the 48hr rule. Imagine if it went from 35 comments to several hundred in a matter of days, all comments against the removal of "when practicable" for the 48hr soa. They might just listen!

Go make your voices heard! Comment at the following link, its super easy! [EXTERNAL LINK] - Regulations.gov

Here is the comment I posted.

"Re: CMS Proposed Rule 48hr scope of appointment changes
It is important to consider that well meaning regulation may actually have a negative impact on the Medicare beneficiaries CMS is trying to protect.
Seniors can, shop for a mortgage, purchase a car, make investment and insurance decisions without a requirment that they wait 48hrs before receiving information from their advisor. Yet when they turn 65 suddenly they are infantilized and are told that they can not receive information on their Medicare Part C and Part D coverage options until 48hrs have passed from the date of their request.

48hrs will pass and eventually they will be sitting accros from that agent or back on the phone with them and they are no safer at that point then they were 48hrs ago. Therefore, the 48hr SOA requirment is entirely ineffective at protecting seniors. All it does is make it even more difficult for them to get the information they need to make an educated coverage decision.

In the proposed rule it is stated that "The reasons for why a meeting must occur within the 48 hour timeframe are numerous and subjective, meaning what is practicable for one person may not be practicable for another,". This statement is entirely true, and it is also exactly the reason " When practicable" should be included in the final rule. By removing "when practicable " you eliminate the ability of the benficiary to make the choice on thier own about when and where they would like to receive that information. This only serves to add an additional obstacle that the beneficiary must deal with before receiving guidance and information.

There is no other financial product in existence that requires a 48hr cooling off period before even talking about the product. The 48hr SOA requirement does nothing to protect medicare benficiaries becuase ultimately the 48hrs will pass and they will be right back with that same agent and nothing will have changed from 48hrs prior. Because of this, the 48hr requirment does not actually protect medicare beneficiaries in any meaningful way. It only creates another obstacle on their path to suitable Part C and D coverage.

You should be applauded you for taking a stand and trying to improve something. You are asking CMS to take into consideration your point of view by laying out your thoughts about the 48hr scope of appointment changes in a comment for them.

Imagine what the CMS staff must think as they read your comments? There is some 15+ spelling and grammatical errors. For lack of reviewing your comments you have put at risk the validity of your position.

 

[Newby]

There are 24 days left, during the comment period anyone can comment and let CMS know what they think about these proposed rules. So far there are only 35 comments! With the number of members on this forum we could really have our voices heard if everyone goes and posts a comment about the removal of "when practicable" from the 48hr rule. Imagine if it went from 35 comments to several hundred in a matter of days, all comments against the removal of "when practicable" for the 48hr soa. They might just listen!

Go make your voices heard! Comment at the following link, its super easy! [EXTERNAL LINK] - Regulations.gov

Here is the comment I posted.

"Re: CMS Proposed Rule 48hr scope of appointment changes
It is important to consider that well meaning regulation may actually have a negative impact on the Medicare beneficiaries CMS is trying to protect.
Seniors can, shop for a mortgage, purchase a car, make investment and insurance decisions without a requirment that they wait 48hrs before receiving information from their advisor. Yet when they turn 65 suddenly they are infantilized and are told that they can not receive information on their Medicare Part C and Part D coverage options until 48hrs have passed from the date of their request.

48hrs will pass and eventually they will be sitting accros from that agent or back on the phone with them and they are no safer at that point then they were 48hrs ago. Therefore, the 48hr SOA requirment is entirely ineffective at protecting seniors. All it does is make it even more difficult for them to get the information they need to make an educated coverage decision.

In the proposed rule it is stated that "The reasons for why a meeting must occur within the 48 hour timeframe are numerous and subjective, meaning what is practicable for one person may not be practicable for another,". This statement is entirely true, and it is also exactly the reason " When practicable" should be included in the final rule. By removing "when practicable " you eliminate the ability of the benficiary to make the choice on thier own about when and where they would like to receive that information. This only serves to add an additional obstacle that the beneficiary must deal with before receiving guidance and information.

There is no other financial product in existence that requires a 48hr cooling off period before even talking about the product. The 48hr SOA requirement does nothing to protect medicare benficiaries becuase ultimately the 48hrs will pass and they will be right back with that same agent and nothing will have changed from 48hrs prior. Because of this, the 48hr requirment does not actually protect medicare beneficiaries in any meaningful way. It only creates another obstacle on their path to suitable Part C and D coverage.

You are missing the whole point of the 48-hour rule. It’s not so they cool down. It’s so they are more likely to call Medicare directly and enroll without an agent. Why do you think all the government pamphlets never mention agents in any way. Their ultimate goal is to work against agents.

 

[LostDollar]

The whole thing is ridiculous, "overzealous" marketers - I'm not even 65 yet but I get weekly phone calls (robocalls) for Medicare...I play along and get connected to an "agent". They never read off the TPMO disclaimer and whenever I start to question who they are, how to contact them, etc. - they hang up. They don't want you to know who they are because they are enrolling people without following any of the rules. (the phone numbers are spoofed). Without CMS dealing with these shady operators, all the protective rules just harm legitimate agents.

Today I told Daniel I'd had 4 calls from him personally in the last week-week and a half and the answer was still the same as it was last time I spoke with him. Not interested.