Smith and Hune introduce Senate Bill 251, replacing No Fault’s most important protections with $50,000 cap
If the insurance industry wanted to sell Sen. Virgil Smith (D-4th District) the Brooklyn Bridge, would he buy it?
Virgil Smith, with Republican co-sponsor Joe Hune, recently introduced a bill (
SB 251)
that would cap medical coverage for auto injury claims at $50,000. It
would wipe out the crown jewel of Michigan’s No Fault system – paying
for all necessary medical care for catastrophic personal injury.
It would also eliminate the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association
(MCCA), which provides life-long coverage for all automobile accident
injuries costing more than $500,000.
SB 251 would shift all of these costs from the insurance industry in Michigan (which is already making some of the
highest profit margins in the nation)
and onto taxpayers, by forcing people onto Medicaid and Medicare. It
would slash jobs and significantly reduce the quality of medical care
that auto accident victims receive. And it would do all of this
without any guaranteed savings or reduction in insurance premiums from
the insurance industry.
The Detroit Free Press said it best back in a June 7, 2011,
editorial, when the newspaper called a similar proposed Michigan No
Fault reform measure “irresponsible” and “unrealistic.”
That was when Senator Virgil Smith had wanted to replace the Michigan
No Fault Law’s nearly 40-year-old guarantee of necessary medical care
for seriously injured automobile accident victims with a similar $50,000
cap on benefits.
The Free Press observed:
“To be sure, a $50,000 minimum for medical care might be irresponsible and unrealistic, given today’s medical costs.”
Now, Smith is at it again. Nearly two years after his previous bill,
Senate Bill 514, was introduced, Sen. Virgil Smith, has sponsored Senate
Bill 251.
I have always believed and I continue to believe that this
legislation or any legislation aimed at eliminating the most important
legal protections under Michigan’s No Fault Law is both “irresponsible”
and “unrealistic”
Here’s why:
- There’s no guarantee of any savings whatsoever for Michigan drivers.
The insurance industry refuses to say that eliminating the most
important benefits under our current No Fault law will result in any
reduction in our insurance premiums.
- Capping benefits at $50,000 will cost auto accident victims, their
families, and all of us as taxpayers untold hundreds of millions of
dollars or more every year. It is shifting burdens from the insurance
industry that charges a premium for this – and is making very high
profits for doing so – onto the rest of us. It is substantially
reducing their liabilities without any corresponding reduction on the
price of auto insurance.
- Auto accident victims will be forced to file thousands of
unnecessary lawsuits to collect the medical benefits no longer covered
by No Fault, even though such lawsuits are notoriously costly and
ineffective. In fact, such lawsuits were so burdensome to the legal
system and so costly, that this was the reason Michigan created our No
Fault system of insurance back in 1973.
No guaranteed savings on auto insurance
Sen. Smith’s latest No Fault reform effort, SB 251, suffers from the
same glaring flaw that plagued and likely doomed its predecessor bills,
including Smith’s own “low cost automobile insurance” pilot program,
which was part of his previous SB 514:
There’s no guarantee of any savings for Michigan drivers. There is no guarantee of any reduction in our insurance premiums.
When will Virgil Smith learn that the true goal of No Fault reform is
– as he insists on claiming – to actually save Detroit drivers money
on auto insurance? There must be attention to how, where and how much
drivers will save if we agree to completely dismantle what has been
called the
best insurance system in the country. He and Sen. Hune have given no details of how No Fault benefits will be slashed.
On the other hand, Michigan auto insurers know exactly how much they
will save. They know exactly how much profits will skyrocket with the
enactment of a $50,000 cap on critical medical benefits and medical care
for injured auto accident victims.
If we are going to dismantle No Fault, where is any guarantee of price savings to consumers?
But we do know that capping medical benefits will cost auto accident victims and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars
Auto accident victims, their families, taxpayers and health insurance
companies will have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars or more
every year if Sen. Virgil Smith’s bill becomes law.
That’s because they will be picking up the tab for everything the
insurance industry previously paid. That would include all of the
catastrophic-injury benefits that No Fault and the MCCA are no longer
paying for. Between 2008-11, the MCCA’s annual payouts on catastrophic
claims were $724 million, $811 million, $897 million and $927 million,
respectively, according to
MCCA press releases.
But it isn’t just catastrophic medical care. Auto accident victims,
their families, taxpayers and Medicare, which is in turn funded by all
of us as taxpayers, will be forced to pick up the tab for all of the
thousands of claims with benefit costs that fall between $50,000 and
$500,000. And let’s face it, after a serious auto accident, the $50,000
medical care cap could be wiped out by an emergency room alone.
By replacing the No Fault guarantee of unlimited, lifetime medical
benefits with a $50,000 cap on benefits and by closing down the Michigan
Catastrophic Claims Association, Smith is eliminating No Fault coverage
for personal injuries with benefits that cost more than $50,000 but
less than $500,000. A catastrophic injury claim is one that has
insurance benefits that exceed $500,000.
This is exactly what former Michigan Insurance Commissioner Thomas C.
Jones said nearly 30 years ago, when the auto insurance industry first
began its push to “reform” No Fault’s guarantee of unlimited, lifetime
benefits out of existence:
Capping No Fault medical benefits is
“destructive to the no-fault concept,” “clearly contrary to the public
interest, and “actually increases the overall cost of the catastrophic
loss.”
