The market for insurance in the US is somewhat unusual. In most every other line of business, companies are allowed to compete with each other across state lines. This helps to keep pricing and the quality of the product to higher levels and protect the consumer. But, the insurance industry is licensed and regulated state-by-state. There’s no such thing as a federal insurance policy. You have to buy a policy written by a company licensed in the state where you live. This is frustrating because, if you live near the border, your friends and colleagues at work probably tell you how little they pay or complain you have the better deals. Either way, it’s not very fair. Worse, the companies often decide not to set up in all fifty states, but pick and choose where they will operate. The result is that many states only have a small number of licensed insurance companies. Because there is no real competition, their premium rates tend to be high. This produces a big political divide. In Republican states, this is the free market at work and no intervention is necessary. If you do not like this, move to another state which has lower rates. In Democratic states, there is more interest in protecting consumer interests. Some states have intervened in their local markets to introduce “managed competition”. Needless to say, this has outraged the insurance industry and the insurance agents who survive on the commission earned from the insurers. There have been heated debates between the lawmakers. Where the local Department or Office of Insurance has produced new rules, they have been referred to the local courts. Who would have thought helping millions of average people to save money on their premium rates would produce so much heat.

Anyway, the latest state to surface in this national debate is Massachusetts. In some ways, this state is also slightly nonstandard because of the dominance of the local agents who handle about 80% of the insurance business. Agents have more to lose if the markets are opened up to competition (and sites like this offer a direct line to insurance companies without having to go through an agent). Not surprisingly, they have been the fastest to the courts in the fight to protect their income. We have just had the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on two rule changes made by the state’s Insurance Commissioner Nonnie Burnes (she has since retired to a university post). Let’s start with the effect of the move to open up the state to competition. Before the rule changes, there were nineteen insurers writing auto insurance policies. Twelve more companies have now entered the markets. In most cases, premium rates have been stable as insurers cut their costs and accepted a reduced profit. But agents have been hit because the opportunities to earn commission have been reduced.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has supported the reforms, finding the effect of managed competition is sufficiently beneficial that it should represent the prevailing public policy in the state. Put another way, the judges think the many consumers should pay less rather than the few corporate officers and stockholders earn excessive profits. Because one of the agent’s automatic rights to a commission has disappeared, they will be looking to recover their losses in other ways. There are two morals to this story. The first is that, if you want to find cheap auto insurance, support the lawmakers in those states who promise to introduce more competition into the car insurance market. Secondly, always get your auto insurance quotes through a site like this and avoid agents who earn commission.

Washington likes acronyms when it comes to lawmaking and this new law is no exception. This is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and this November sees it finally come into force. Because it affects both employers and the insurance industry, this has been a hard-fought change and was only signed into law last year. Now it should prevent you from obvious discrimination. Sadly, it does not rule out discrimination by backdoor means. If an employer overhears you talking at the water cooler or routinely surveys local news including the obituaries, it is legal to use this information. But, overall, you should find some improvement. It covers two different situations with the same type of result. Firstly, it prohibits employers from asking you to go through a genetic test or making genetic information the basis of deciding whether to hire, promote or fire you. Secondly, it prohibits insurers from testing or demanding genetic information about you or your family in deciding whether to offer you coverage, in setting the premium rate and level of the deductible, or continue the cover.

Let’s be completely clear. The law does not care who is asking for the information If it is going to be used for either purpose, the asking is unlawful. If this happens to you in an interview, it may pose a dilemma. If you cite the law and refuse to answer, the interviewer may think you a troublemaker with something to hide and not hire you. That you can complain to the local Department of Labor and take satisfaction in seeing a civil penalty imposed, this does not replace the offer of employment in these difficult economic times. The temptation to answer will be strong. But when it comes to insurance companies, you must stand up and assert your rights. If the insurer persists, report to your state’s Department of Insurance. This will put the insurers at risk of losing their license to sell policies in your state. This is a big stick to wave in defense of your rights. More importantly, the Department can order the insurers to offer you insurance on regular terms which protects you. Once employed, it’s just as important to stay alert. The operators of group health plans are known to offer incentives like lower premiums to employees who answer a questionnaire including questions about their family medical history. Obviously, insurers want to know if there is a risk of serious diseases like cancer. You might be more at risk if there is a history of cancer in your family. Everyone should refuse to answer.

The reason for the law is important. Genetic tests are increasingly important in diagnosis and deciding on the best treatment for medical problems. Too many patients were refusing these tests because they feared discrimination should their employers or health insurance companies learn of the results. The medical profession strongly supported this change in employment and insurance law. Doctors want to be able to make an accurate diagnosis which means using the best available tests. With this law in place, your rights should be protected. If you are considering a change in insurer, remember you cannot be discriminated against when the companies give you health insurance quotes. They must always be able to prove their quotes are close to the average for people of your age, gender and general social background. If you think you are being victimized, complain.