Bill Would Keep Sports [MOTORCYCLE] Injury Insurance Coverage [PLUS: $$ FOR OBESITY PREVENTION]

Yahoo News ^ | Wed Oct 29, 6:41 PM ET | Julie Rovner

[martin_fierro]

Bill Would Keep Sports Injury Insurance Coverage

Wed Oct 29, 6:41 PM ET

By Julie Rovner

WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - A U.S. Senate Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would close what lawmakers describe as a loophole in a 1996 insurance anti-discrimination law--a loophole sponsors of the measure say could allow health insurance plans to deny coverage for injuries sustained doing common recreational activities or riding a motorcycle to work.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved the "Health Care Parity for Legal Transportation and Recreational Activities Act" by voice vote.

The insurance bill would amend the 1996 "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act," which bars health plans from excluding from group coverage or charging higher premiums to individuals who participate in a range of activities, including "motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding skiing."

Regulations to implement the law that were issued in 2001, however, said that while the law prevents individuals in group health plans from being excluded from coverage or charged more, "benefits for a particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source of the injury."

In other words, while those who participate in potentially dangerous activities would be required to have access to coverage, insurers would not necessarily have to cover injuries resulting from those activities.

Sponsors of the new bill say that was not the intent of regulations. "In enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting from a common recreational activity," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, when she introduced the measure in February.

"If this rule is allowed to stand, millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities that they currently enjoy, lest they have an accident and find out that they are not covered," Collins added.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., whose state is home to motorcycle maker Harley Davidson, agreed. "Millions of Americans rely on motorcycles for their transportation to work," he said. "Individuals should not be singled out just because they choose a different mode of transportation."

The bill would stipulate that benefits may not be denied for an injury "solely because such injury resulted from participation of the participant or beneficiary in an activity such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing, or other similar legal activity."

Separately, the committee also approved the "Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act," a measure aimed at combating the nation's growing epidemic of obesity.

This bill would authorize funds to train health professionals in how to identify those at risk for overweight or obesity and how best to treat and prevent the conditions.

The bill would also provide grants to communities to promote better nutrition and increased physical activity; and require the Department of Health and Human Services to summarize existing research on obesity and create a research agenda for the future.

[martin_fierro]

Discuss amongst yourselves, 'n'at.

[martin_fierro]

	FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan
FR motorcycle-related posts
Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list

[JoeSixPack1]

...could allow health insurance plans to deny coverage...

Let's socialize the entire freakin' planet and just get it over with. This freakin' nit pickin' legislation to tack a few cents to every insurance premium so riders are guaranteed a policy is BULL$$$T and it costs us bigtime in public opinion. Whatever happened to "tailored insurance policies"?

Non-riders will be paying for the insurance of riders and vice-versa. This is rotten legislation and only benefits those morons who jump on Uncle Joe's snowmobile and crash directly into a tree, then realize, "oh man, I don't have insurance to cover my broken head"!

Good, it only means your head was never working right in the first place!!!

If I ride to work everyday, chances are I'm already pretty good at avoiding trees and already have a seperate insurance policy. My choices usually are determined by my wallet and that's the best stop-gap legislation available.

[dawn53]

I'm against excluding these groups, BUT, I'm also against having my insurance rates go up because some motorcylist races down the interstate doing 70 with no helmet on, and then suffers serious injuries in a crash.

We have several bicyclist clubs in our city, I'm also appalled when I see bicyclists en masse breaking the traffic laws, just because "they can", and the drivers have to go out of their way to avoid hitting them.

Paying for injuries for legitimate accidents is one thing, paying for foolhardy actions is another.

[BraveMan]

I'm against excluding these groups, BUT, . . .

Sigh. Here we go again . . .

Nationwide, treatment of all injuries to all motorcyclists comprise .053% of the total health care costs. This includes millions of insurance-premium-paying, helmet-wearing, law-abiding motorcyclists. If your premiums are going up, its not the fault of motorcyclists. It IS the fault of your insurance agent. He/She is handing you a line of horsepucky and you are buying into it.

Point of fact, my personal insurance premiums for my commemorative edition Harley-Davidson donor-cycle are significantly less than the premiums for any of my airbag-equipped, crumple-zone ensconced four-wheeled vehicles. Do you wonder why that is so?

[BraveMan]

I cannot believe I'm in agreement with Sen. Russell Feingold. That is frightening . . .

[blackie]

Right-on!

[longtermmemmory]

most states do not include motorcycles in their no fault scheme. The insurance argument is irrelevant.

This law is bad because it does not distinguish between motorcycles for hobby, such as motocross, and motorcycles for transportation or travel. Not all motorcycles are the same.

Insurance for sports cars is different from insurance for land yatchs.

There should be zero discrimination for the method you use to get to work.

[longtermmemmory]

how about mandatory helmets for ALL vehicles. No exceptions. (ok sarcasm off.)

[Melas]

This is health insurance Joe. Tailored policies aren't really applicable as the vast majority of the insured just take what the employer is providing.

[JoeSixPack1]

Well, you made me go back and reread the entire article in hopes I missed something. It seems that recreational activities are the main concern.

Employer granted policies have always excluded certain activites to reduce the insurers liability and lower the resulting premiums. I discovered this loop hole when I almost cut my finger off with a hacksaw while cutting an exhaust pipe off somewhere back in the later part of the 80's. It was a sunday, and my coverage for the ER bill went bouncing from my employee insurance coverage, through my homeowners policy, bounced off my autopolicy and eventually got paid (I think, memory failing fast, help!!) by my employee policy.

Does this bill address multiple coverage and bickering between insurers?

I see an increased complication in claim processes and premium cost associated with this proposed legislation and a requirement to have multiple coverage.

Riding a motorcycle to work is my responsibility as is my auto policy, not a recreational coverage that would force my employer to include in employee health coverage.

I would add, provisions for 'existing conditions' is much more worthy of newer legislation than this bill.