Persistency of MAPD and Med Supp

[vic120]

I'll just stick this here.
Firm Sizes Market for Multi-Location Medicare Plans | ThinkAdvisor

The Problem with this article is it takes a retirees current situation, does not accounting for the what ifs,

Also I am sure the purpose of the site is to show the seniors the best possible financial outcome of retirement, It will probably resort to MA most of the time because then they can show lower cost of living making the site look good to seniors

 

[goillini52]

The Problem with this article is it takes a retirees current situation, does not accounting for the what ifs,

Also I am sure the purpose of the site is to show the seniors the best possible financial outcome of retirement, It will probably resort to MA most of the time because then they can show lower cost of living making the site look good to seniors

Yes, you're right. There are too many variables(what ifs), that the tool can't figure in for it to be effective.

 

[timeflies]

The original posted initially stated they wanted to know if Medicare business was stickier than FE or visa versa. Most of my sales have been MAPDs with about 25% dual eligible SNPs. I am very high touch with my members. I treat them all as clients in terms of customer service annual reviews etc. For a couple of years, I was cross selling FE to my MAPD members. I estimate that about 30% of the FE sales have lapsed since I wrote them. It may be higher than that, but most of them still have their Medicare plan with me. However, I only loose Med Supps or MAPD business if they move or die. Rarely does the Medicare business fall offf. Medicare business has held much better than the FE business. That has been my experience.

 

[LostDollar]

It seems to me that the information in that article represents points that an insurance agent would already know and have to use on a regular basis when dealing with prospective purchasers.

Geoffrey Bourne, Retirety’s founder and chief executive officer, crunched the user data for the Medicare tool’s first few months of operation, and confirmed a widely held belief about older U.S. consumers: They typically want to limit spending on any new insurance product.

After reading here for awhile, it seems to me that that applies to consumers of any age and relates to any insurance product.

They were also resistant to any of the strategies health plans typically use to hold down claim costs: 64% said they prefer the broadest possible choice of providers, and 56% want to be able t osee specialists without getting approval from a primary care physician.

This comparison is something I see agents discussing all the time.

But Bourne also found a piece of information insurers and agents might be able to use: 19% of the users said they spend a large amount of time traveling, or that they spend time residing in two or more different states.

I would think any professional that deals with older retired folks with financial resources would be aware that a small group of them will have residences in multiple states and will travel on a regular basis.

 

[somarco]

Since Monkey Man already hijacked this thread here is my observation on his link.

Only 23% said they could spend $125 or more per month for more comprehensive health coverage.

How many are spending that much or more on their current health CARE?

Most of my clients are T65, and most coming off group plans with high deductibles. Except in the rarest of cases they are spending $500+ per month on health insurance plus several hundred (or thousand) annually on health care.

I talked with a lady this week who said her friend told her to get "one of those Medicare supplement plans that don't charge a premium".

After explaining the difference in a supplement and a $0 plan I asked how much she was paying for her health care.

"About $2,000 per year + medication"

After determining she could budget $150 per month (plan G + Rx) and her med's would run less than $20 she decided the G + PDP was very reasonable.


They were also resistant to any of the strategies health plans typically use to hold down claim costs: 64% said they prefer the broadest possible choice of providers, and 56% want to be able t osee specialists without getting approval from a primary care physician.

This pretty much rules out any sort of managed care plan

 

[goillini52]

Since Monkey Man already hijacked this thread here is my observation on his link.

Only 23% said they could spend $125 or more per month for more comprehensive health coverage.

How many are spending that much or more on their current health CARE?

Most of my clients are T65, and most coming off group plans with high deductibles. Except in the rarest of cases they are spending $500+ per month on health insurance plus several hundred (or thousand) annually on health care.

I talked with a lady this week who said her friend told her to get "one of those Medicare supplement plans that don't charge a premium".

After explaining the difference in a supplement and a $0 plan I asked how much she was paying for her health care.

"About $2,000 per year + medication"

After determining she could budget $150 per month (plan G + Rx) and her med's would run less than $20 she decided the G + PDP was very reasonable.


They were also resistant to any of the strategies health plans typically use to hold down claim costs: 64% said they prefer the broadest possible choice of providers, and 56% want to be able t osee specialists without getting approval from a primary care physician.

This pretty much rules out any sort of managed care plan

I hate those MA ads. They confuse people and they're VERY misleading. I'm always having people tell me that you can only change a Med Supp between October 15th and December 7th each year.