ReportWire

Tag: insurance company

  • Survivors in Palisades and Altadena mark anniversary of deadly fires with anger and mourning

    [ad_1]

    One year after two of the most destructive wildfires in California’s history erupted just hours apart, survivors commemorated the day in Altadena and Pacific Palisades with a mixture of anger and somber remembrance.

    At the American Legion veterans post in the Palisades, hundreds gathered at a military-style white-glove ceremony to pay respects to the 12 families who lost loved ones in the Palisades fire.

    Just down the street, an even larger crowd shouted the rally cry “They let us burn,” to demand comprehensive disaster planning, relief for families working to rebuild and accountability for government missteps that they say enabled the disaster and have slowed the recovery.

    In Altadena, survivors congregated at the Eaton Fire Collaborative’s community center with a clear message: They were not backing down in the fight to return home.

    “This year has been the hardest year of our lives,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivor Network. “Unimaginable grief. The 31 people who died that day, and the hundreds who have died prematurely since. Home lost. Jobs lost. Incomes lost. A sense of safety and identity stripped away.”

    In the evening, Atladenans plan to gather at a beloved family-owned burger joint that miraculously still stands amid a sea of empty lots. The restaurant, Fair Oaks Burger, reopened an outdoor kitchen for residents and recovery workers just weeks after the fire and has become a lifeline for the neighborhood.

    Jessica Rogers, who lost her home in the Palisades fire and has since become the executive director of the Palisades Long-Term Recovery Group, which organized the remembrance ceremony, said that people are still processing what happened over the last year.

    “The five different stages of grief — you can feel them. Sometimes people can feel them almost all at the same time,” she said. “There is no right or wrong way to process grief. Everybody processes it in their own way, at their own speed and their own time. And some need to do it at home, behind closed doors; others need to do it very vocally, out in public.”

    Pacific Palisades residents Julia Citron, right, cries with her mother Lainie with Palisades fire survivors

    Pacific Palisades resident Julia Citron, right, cries with her mother, Lainie, in Palisades Village on Wednesday. The Citrons lost their home in the fire. “It was the only house our children knew,” said Lainie Citron.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    Very different communities, the Palisades and Altadena share similar frustrations — with insurance companies, government agencies and disaster scammers. But on Wednesday, they directed their wrath on contrasting targets. In Altadena, activists are focused on real estate speculators and Southern California Edison, suspected of triggering the Eaton fire. In the Palisades, anger continues to mount against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the city’s Fire Department and state agencies.

    Inside the Palisades Legion Post, the 11-year-old daughter of Jim Cragg, the Post’s former commander, handed white roses to the families of fire victims. One of these was a family member of Rory Sykes, who perished in the blaze, who told Cragg: “He would have loved this.” Both held back tears.

    The families then led hundreds of Palisadians waiting outside — many wearing “They Let Us Burn” T-shirts — in a procession down to a small community park, where the legion had placed 13 memorials: One for each victim, and one for the many uncounted lives lost in the fire’s wake.

    In a moment of silence, Palisadians called out the names of loved ones who had died in the aftermath. Many sobbed.

    Researchers estimate the January fires resulted in upward of 400 excess deaths in L.A. County beyond the official death toll.

    1

    Steve Salinas shields from intense heat as he hoses down a neighbors rooftop

    2

    The view from the same rooftop, one year later.

    1. Steve Salinas shields from intense heat as he hoses down a neighbors rooftop on Sinaloa Ave. as the Eaton Fire continues to grow, January 8, 2025. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times) 2. The view from the same rooftop, one year later. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

    “People burned alive in their homes. There was nobody going to get them,” Kathleen Boltiansky said through tears as she watched the ceremony.

    Boltiansky, who lost her house in the fire, planned to attend the “They Let Us Burn” rally after the service. “Public safety should be item No. 1 — if they cannot provide public safety, what are they doing?”

    Just across the street, Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” played over a loudspeaker as protesters gathered in front of the burned husk of the historic 1924 Business Block Building.

    Rally organizer Jeremy Padawer, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, took the stage. “The days of gaslighting should be over,” he called out.

    Padawer asked the audience to raise their hands if their home burned or remains contaminated.

    Hundreds of hands shot up.

    Josh Lederer, clutching a “They Let Us Burn” banner, described how he, his wife and 2-year-old daughter moved five times since the fire and are still unable to return to their home amid fights with their insurance company. He’s glad his child is too young to really understand what’s going on.

    “You feel, when there’s an emergency, your city’s going to be there to protect you, and we had nobody,” said Lederer, 42. “And since then, we’ve had nobody helping us. All we get is lip service from Karen Bass and Newsom that it’s somebody else’s fault or we’re trying to profit off this. We’re not trying to profit off anything. We want our lives back.”

    Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonald, left, speaks with Mayor Karen Bass

    Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonald, left, speaks with Mayor Karen Bass after a private ceremony where they remembered the fire victims with faith leaders, LAPD officers and city officials as flags were lowered outside City Hall.

    (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

    When ABC 7 Eyewitness News asked Bass if she thought the “They Let Us Burn” rally is how residents should commemorate the one-year anniversary, she dismissed the event.

    “I don’t think so,” she said. “But again, I think there are people who are profiting off this, and that is what I find very despicable.”

    Padawer said he had invited Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom to the rally to listen to survivors and accept accountability, but neither joined.

    A spokesperson for Newsom’s office said the governor would meet directly with survivors in Los Angeles this week. Bass started the day at a private vigil at the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine in Pacific Palisades, then presided over a flag-lowering ceremony at City Hall to honor the victims.

    a woman in white gloves hugs another person as people look on

    Jessica Rogers with the Palisades Long Term Recovery Group, third from left, hugs Marina Shterenberg, who lost a loved one in the Palisades fire, during a community ceremony in partnership with the Palisades American Legion Post 283, marking the one year anniversary of the fire on January 7, 2026. The ceremony honored those who lost their lives in the fire, including Mark Shterenberg.

    (Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

    Several elected officials attended the American Legion ceremony — including state Sen. Ben Allen and county Supervisor Lindsey Horvath — but only one attended the rally too: City Councilmember Traci Park. She stepped on stage at the rally in a far less somber tone than at the memorial.

    “Let’s end this culture of half-assed solutions,” she said — also noting that there were “some folks” who “didn’t want me to come here today.”

    “What happened on Jan. 7 was catastrophic failure and to pretend otherwise is just insulting,” she told the crowd. “You did not imagine what happened, and you are right to be angry.”

    In Altadena, a coalition of lawmakers, survivors and advocates at the Collaboratory community center set the tone for the second year of recovery.

    Recently, a survey from the nonprofit Department of Angels found that more than 7 out of 10 Altadena residents remain displaced from their homes. Nearly half have exhausted their savings, and over 40% have taken on personal debt to survive, said Miguel Santana, co-founder of the nonprofit.

    Among them are people like Ada Hernandez, who owned a 1950s home on Mountain View Street with her husband, Miguel, where they lived with their 5-year-old son, Mason, 2-year-old Sadie and 14-year-old dog Bentley. They moved into their home in 2018, on the same day she lost her firstborn son. But in the fire, she said, she lost every physical memory of him, including his neonatal intensive care unit pillow and handprint.

    • Share via

    Now, the pain has compounded as her family has been forced to move three times over the last year. They have spent the last two months in an Airbnb with help from the Salvation Army, she said, but that runs out next Wednesday.

    “We feel forgotten,” Hernandez, 37, said. “We feel like we’re at a standstill.”

    Bass and Newsom have touted L.A.’s recovery as one of the fastest in modern California history. Bass, in particular, points to her work in cutting red tape at the Department of Building and Safety, which is reviewing and signing off on the rebuilding plans. But to many survivors, recovery still feels painfully slow.

    Avaristo Serrano helps build a home on Highview Street

    Avaristo Serrano helps build a home on Highview Street, one year after the Eaton fire.

    (Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

    As of December, L.A. County had issued rebuilding permits for about 16% of homes destroyed in Altadena, and the city of L.A. issued permits for just under 14% for the Palisades, The Times found. Many whose homes survived the fire but were contaminated by smoke and ash are still fighting with their insurance companies to remediate their homes. Many homes in Altadena remain contaminated even after remediation.

    Mark Mariscal, a longtime Altadena resident, said he faced months of delays by his insurance company but, with help from the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, finally got a check in the mail. He became emotional as he remembered the lives lost and everything that transpired since Jan. 7.

    “It’s just a battle, a good one because we’re pretty sure we’re never moving again,” he said. “After we build this house the way we want it, we’re not moving again. Unless I’m sent up to my higher power.”

    For many survivors, finding a sense of peace in their healing journeys one year into recovery has proved difficult without closure. Investigations and reports into the failures that led to and exacerbated the disasters have left residents with more questions than answers.

    In October, federal investigators announced the Palisades fire appeared to explode from a small brush fire still smoldering from a week prior. Ongoing litigation has suggested that Los Angeles Fire Department leaders limited their firefighting techniques to protect sensitive plants at the request of California State Parks, and investigations by The Times found that leaders ordered firefighters to leave the site even though it was still smoldering and subsequently covered up their mistakes.

    Meanwhile, emergency officials failed to issue evacuation orders for west Altadena, a historically Black enclave, until five hours after the fire began to engulf homes in the neighborhood. An investigation by The Times found that even as the fire progressed far into the west side of town, the majority of Los Angeles County Fire Department resources remained elsewhere.

    “So many different layers of mistakes had to be made for this to occur,” Padawer told The Times. He said the rally was intended to highlight both the “gaslighting” and “solutions that can help our neighbors come home.”

    a person wearing a white glove stands at attention

    The Palisades Long Term Recovery Group, in partnership with the Palisades American Legion Post 283 hosts a community ceremony with white glove presentation of flags for the families of those lost, marking the one year anniversary of the Palisades fire on January 7, 2026.

    (Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

    Sue Kohl, president of the Pacific Palisades Community Council, said she had mixed feelings early Wednesday as reporters gathered for a news conference on the barren front lawn of what will be her new home on Iliff Street in the decimated Alphabet Streets neighborhood.

    Construction on her two-story home — surrounded by empty lots — is well underway. But she has no memories here, she said. It’s not the place where she lived for 32 years and raised five children and three stepchildren.

    The anniversary, she said, is “like emotional ping pong. You want to be positive. But at the same time — I mean, look around. At least now you see a lot of construction.”

    Many survivors say a hope for the future is the one thing that motivates them. In five years, or maybe ten, Rogers looks forward to all the little things that make the Palisades the Palisades.

    “I’d like to see children running down the streets happily. I’d like to hear them, see them on their bikes, watch the teenagers hang out at CVS, in the parks. I’d like to see all Angelenos from all parts of Los Angeles back up in our hiking trails,” she said.

    “That would bring me a lot of joy, to see our schools thriving again, and I’d love to complain about the 3 p.m. traffic — the kids’ pickup time from schools in the village,” she said. “That’s what I’d like to see come back in our community as soon as possible.”

    [ad_2]

    Noah Haggerty, Hailey Branson-Potts, Melissa Gomez

    Source link

  • Lawmakers return to Washington facing Venezuela concerns, shutdown threat

    [ad_1]

    Lawmakers are returning to Washington this week confronting the fallout from the stunning capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — and familiar complaints about the Trump administration deciding to bypass Congress on military operations that have led to this moment.

    Democratic leaders are demanding the administration immediately brief Congress. Republican leaders indicated over the weekend those plans are being scheduled, but some lawmakers expressed frustration Sunday that the details have been slow to arrive.

    President Trump told the nation Saturday that the United States intends to “run” Venezuela and take control over the country’s oil operations now that Maduro has been captured and brought to New York to stand trial in a criminal case centered on narco-terrorism charges.

    The administration did not brief Congress ahead of the actions, leaving Democrats and some Republicans expressing public frustration with the decision to sideline Congress.

    “Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a social media post Saturday.

    Appearing on the Sunday news shows, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, ticked through a growing list of unknowns — and laid out plans for their party to try and reassert Congress’ authority over acts of war.

    “The problem here is that there are so many unanswered questions,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “How long do they intend to be there? How many troops do we need after one day? After one week? After one year? How much is it going to cost and what are the boundaries?”

    Jeffries told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he was worried about Trump running Venezuela, saying he has “done a terrible job running the United States of America” and should be focused on the job at home.

    In the coming days, Jeffries said Democrats will prioritize legislative action to try and put a check on the administration, “to ensure that no further military steps occur absent explicit congressional approval.”

    As discussions over Venezuela loom, lawmakers also face major decisions on how to address rising costs of healthcare, prevent another government shutdown and deal with the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

    Much of the unfinished business reflects a Congress that opted to punt some of its toughest and most politically divisive decisions into the new year, a move that could slow negotiations as lawmakers may be reluctant to give the other side high-profile policy wins in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.

    First and foremost, Congress faces the monumental task of averting yet another government shutdown — just two months after the longest shutdown in U.S. history ended. Lawmakers have until Jan. 30 to pass spending bills needed to keep the federal government open. Both chambers are scheduled to be in session for three weeks before the shutdown deadline — with the House slated to be out of session the week immediately before.

    Lawmakers were able to resolve key funding disputes late last year, including funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, also known as food stamps, and other government programs. But disagreements over healthcare spending remain a major sticking point in budget negotiations, intensified now that millions of Americans are facing higher healthcare costs after lawmakers allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire on Thursday.

    “We can still find a solution to this,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who has proposed legislation to extend the tax credits for two years. “We need to come up with ways to make people whole. That needs to be a top priority as soon as we get back.”

    Despite that urgency, Republican efforts to be the author of broad healthcare reforms have gotten little traction.

    Underscoring the political pressure over the issue, four moderate House Republicans late last year defied party leadership and joined House Democrats to force a floor vote on a three-year extension of the subsidies. That vote is expected to take place in the coming weeks. Even if the House effort succeeds, its prospects remain dim in the Senate, where Republicans last month blocked a three-year extension.

    Meanwhile, President Trump is proposing giving more money directly to people for their healthcare, rather than to insurance companies. A White House official said the administration is also pursuing reforms to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

    Trump said last month that he plans to summon a group of healthcare executives to Washington early in the year to pressure them to lower costs.

    “I’m going to call in the insurance companies that are making so much money, and they have to make less, a lot less,” Trump said during an Oval Office announcement. “I’m going to see if they get their price down, to put it very bluntly. And I think that is a very big statement.”

    There is an expectation that Trump’s increasing hostility to insurance companies will play a role in any Republican healthcare reform proposal. If Congress does not act, the president is expected to leverage the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug and insurance companies to lower healthcare prices for consumers through executive action, said Nick Iarossi, a Trump fundraiser.

    “The president is locked in on the affordability message and I believe anything he can accomplish unilaterally without Congress he will do to provide relief to consumers,” Iarossi said.

    While lawmakers negotiate government funding and healthcare policy, the continuing Epstein saga is expected to take up significant bandwidth.

    Democrats and a few Republicans have been unhappy with the Department of Justice’s decision to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    Some are weighing options for holding Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi accountable.

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who co-sponsored the law that mandated the release with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), said he and Massie will bring contempt charges against Bondi in an attempt to force her to comply with the law.

    “The survivors and the public demand transparency and justice,” Khanna said in a statement.

    Under a law passed by Congress and signed by Trump, the Justice Department was required to release all Epstein files by Dec. 19, and released about 100,000 pages on that day. In the days that followed, the Justice Department said more than 5.2 million documents have been discovered and need to be reviewed.

    “We have lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legally required redactions to protect victims, and we will release the documents as soon as possible,” the Justice Department said in a social media post on Dec. 24. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”

    Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told MS NOW last week that pressure to address the matter will come to a head in the new year when lawmakers are back at work.

    “When we get back to Congress here in this next week, we’re going to find out really quick if Republicans are serious about actually putting away and taking on pedophiles and some of the worst people and traffickers in modern history, or if they’re going to bend the knee to Donald Trump,” said Garcia, of Long Beach.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Commentary: Beneath the rambling, Trump laid out a chilling healthcare plan

    [ad_1]

    Folks, who was supposed to be watching grandpa last night? Because he got out, got on TV and … It. Was. Not. Good.

    For 18 long minutes Wednesday evening, we were subjected to a rant by President Trump that predictably careened from immigrants (bad) to jobs (good), rarely slowing down for reality. But jumbled between the vitriol and venom was a vision of American healthcare that would have horror villainess M3GAN shaking in her Mary Janes — a vision that we all should be afraid of because it would take us back to a dark era when insurance couldn’t be counted on.

    Trump’s remarks offered only a sketchy outline, per usual, in which the costs of health insurance premiums may be lower — but it will be because the coverage is terrible. Yes, you’ll save money. But so what? A cheap car without wheels is not a deal.

    “The money should go to the people,” Trump said of his sort-of plan.

    The money he vaguely was alluding to is the government subsidies that make insurance under the Affordable Care Act affordable. After antics and a mini-rebellion by four Republicans also on Wednesday, Congress basically failed to do anything meaningful on healthcare — pretty much ensuring those subsidies will disappear with the New Year.

    Starting in January, premiums for too many people are going to leap skyward without the subsidies, jumping by an average of $1,016 according to the health policy research group KFF.

    That’s bad enough. But Trump would like to make it worse.

    The Affordable Care Act is about much more than those subsidies. Before it took effect in 2014, insurance companies in many states could deny coverage for preexisting conditions. This didn’t have to be big-ticket stuff like cancer. A kid with asthma? A mom with colitis? Those were the kind of routine but chronic problems that prevented millions from obtaining insurance — and therefore care.

    Obamacare required that policies sold on its exchange did not discriminate. In addition, the ACA required plans to limit out-of-pocket costs and end lifetime dollar caps, and provide a baseline of coverage that included essentials such as maternity care. Those standards put pressure on all plans to include more, even those offered through large employers.

    Trump would like to undo much of that. He instead wants to fall back on the stunt he loves the most — send a check!

    What he is suggesting by sending subsidy money directly to consumers also most likely would open the market to plans without the regulation of the ACA. So yes, small businesses or even groups of individuals might be able to band together to buy insurance, but there likely would be fewer rules about what — or whom — it has to cover.

    Most people aren’t savvy or careful enough to understand the limitations of their insurance before it matters. So it has a $2-million lifetime cap? That sounds like a lot until your kid needs a treatment that eats through that in a couple of months. Then what?

    Trump suggested people pay for it themselves, out of health savings accounts funded by that subsidy check sent directly to taxpayers. Because that definitely will work, and people won’t spend the money on groceries or rent, and what they do save certainly will cover any medical expenses.

    “You’ll get much better healthcare at a much lower price,” Trump claimed Wednesday. “The only losers will be insurance companies that have gotten rich, and the Democrat Party, which is totally controlled by those same insurance companies. They will not be happy, but that’s OK with me because you, the people, are finally going to be getting great healthcare at a lower cost.”

    He then bizarrely tried to blame the expiring subsidies on Democrats.

    Democrats “are demanding those increases and it’s their fault,” he said. “It is not the Republicans’ fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault. It’s the Unaffordable Care Act, and everybody knew it.”

    It seems like Trump just wants to lower costs at the expense of quality. Here’s where I take issue with the Democrats. I am not here to defend insurance companies or our healthcare system. Both clearly need reform.

    But why are the Democrats failing to explain what “The money should go to the people” will mean?

    I get that affordability is the message, and as someone who bought both a steak and a carton of milk this week, I understand just how powerful that issue is.

    Still, everyone, Democrat or Republican, wants decent healthcare they can afford, and the peace of mind of knowing if something terrible happens, they will have access to help. There is no American who gladly would pay for insurance each month, no matter how low the premium, that is going to leave them without care when they or their loved ones need it most.

    Grandpa Trump doesn’t have this worry, since he has the best healthcare our tax dollars can buy.

    But when he promises to send a check instead of providing governance and regulation of one of the most critical purchases in our lives, the message is sickening: My victory in exchange for your well-being.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Sacramento plans to add more trees as it faces service-request backlog

    [ad_1]

    The “City of Trees” is facing a big backlog. Except in cases of an emergency, it could take crews one to two years to respond to concerns about trees on Sacramento property.Even as the city struggles to keep up, it is making plans to plant more trees in the years ahead, meaning the workload is only expected to grow.Sacramento’s identity is deeply rooted in its dense urban forest.”We pride ourselves on being the city with the most trees,” said East Sacramento resident Brett Davison.However, he and his neighbors say they have been dealing with a growing concern over the upkeep of all these city trees.”I have neighbors where it’s gotten under their roof tiles,” he said. “I just think of it as a safety issue.”A safety issue that has insurance companies taking notice.”Their insurance company flew a drone over their house,” Davison said of his neighbors.The issue comes as California is in the midst of an insurance crisis.”The insurance company had said, ‘You can’t. You’ve got to trim it back,’” he said.Davison heard the same thing from his insurance company.Since the trees are on public property maintained by the city, they say they have tried to report concerns to Sacramento over the last year or so. But the response had them stumped.”At that point, they were booked out for two and a half years for any sort of maintenance or thinning of trees in Sacramento,” Davison said. “I thought he was kidding.”KCRA 3 Investigates confirmed that, for requests the city deems non-emergencies, there is a backlog, often with a wait time of at least one year.”It’s been frustrating,” Davison said. Sacramento Media & Communications Specialist Gabby Miller, who handles inquiries involving the city’s Urban Forestry Division, declined an interview on the topic.Only by email would she say that the root cause of all this stems from staffing shortages and the 2023 storms that did unprecedented damage.Here is the prepared statement Miller provided:”The City of Sacramento maintains more than 100,000 trees in streets and parks across the city’s 100 square miles. Each tree is pruned on a proactive cycle that typically takes five to seven years to complete.”Residents who have concerns about City trees or would like to request pruning are encouraged to use the 311 Customer Service Center, either by dialing 311 or emailing 311@cityofsacramento.org. This system ensures requests are documented and tracked through to completion.”The City typically receives more than 500 service requests each month related to tree issues, with numbers increasing significantly during extreme weather. Emergency calls—such as when a tree or branch poses an immediate risk to public safety—are responded to within one hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Non-emergency requests usually receive an initial response within 48 hours. Crews prioritize work based on severity and efficiency, so that as many requests as possible are completed each month.”Severe storms in 2023 caused unprecedented damage to trees throughout Sacramento. Combined with staffing shortages in the Urban Forestry section, this created a backlog of non-emergency requests, with many taking a year or longer to address. Despite these challenges, the City has managed to keep up with emergency requests.”Substantial efforts have been made to improve the situation, including hiring more staff in Urban Forestry and directing additional resources to tree care service contracts. These steps have already accelerated pruning efforts and begun to reduce the backlog in recent months. While progress has been significant, the City recognizes there is still more work ahead before service levels fully meet public expectations.”One East Sacramento resident said he was finally able to get his concern taken care of after reaching out to Councilmember Pluckebaum.The councilmember told KCRA 3 Investigates that he usually gets a call a week about a limb falling on a car or a fence.However, on New Year’s Day in 2023, the calls to the city seemed endless.”That was a really big storm. It was significant and expensive,” Pluckebaum said.He said the city has a contract with West Coast Arborists, and the company had to bring in all its arborists from the West Coast to respond.”Fourteen hundred people to swarm the city and clear our streets, but it also cleared our budget,” Pluckebaum said.Nearly three years later, the city’s still feeling the fallout.”Our only answer is to figure out how to either reduce costs and/or raise revenue such to provide for that level of service that the folks expect,” he said.”Is there anything in the works to take any of those steps that you know of?” KCRA 3 Investigates’ Lysée Mitri asked.”No, unfortunately, it’s probably going to require yet another tax measure. We don’t have another strategy in the near term. We’re looking at budget cuts for the next three years,” Councilmember Pluckebaum said.Meanwhile, beyond three years, the job of maintaining trees is only expected to grow.In June, the city council voted unanimously to try to double the tree canopy by 2045, focusing on areas that currently lack tree cover. The plan will mean more trees on both public and private property.”Voting to increase the tree canopy is like, you know, voting for puppy dogs or apple pie, right? These are uncontroversial types of initiatives. Now, a discussion about how to pay for it is a whole other conversation,” Pluckebaum said.Currently, about 10% of trees in Sacramento are maintained by the city. It’s not clear if that would continue to be the case, but the newly adopted Sacramento Urban Forest Plan estimates that full implementation means the city would need an extra $12-13 million a year. “I’m all about more trees. Bring it on. I love, I love the trees, but you better have enough maintenance crews to handle what you’ve got going on first before you add any more,” Davison said.For many, the current financial landscape is sowing seeds of doubt.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    The “City of Trees” is facing a big backlog. Except in cases of an emergency, it could take crews one to two years to respond to concerns about trees on Sacramento property.

    Even as the city struggles to keep up, it is making plans to plant more trees in the years ahead, meaning the workload is only expected to grow.

    Sacramento’s identity is deeply rooted in its dense urban forest.

    “We pride ourselves on being the city with the most trees,” said East Sacramento resident Brett Davison.

    However, he and his neighbors say they have been dealing with a growing concern over the upkeep of all these city trees.

    “I have neighbors where it’s gotten under their roof tiles,” he said. “I just think of it as a safety issue.”

    A safety issue that has insurance companies taking notice.

    “Their insurance company flew a drone over their house,” Davison said of his neighbors.

    The issue comes as California is in the midst of an insurance crisis.

    “The insurance company had said, ‘You can’t. You’ve got to trim it back,’” he said.

    Davison heard the same thing from his insurance company.

    Since the trees are on public property maintained by the city, they say they have tried to report concerns to Sacramento over the last year or so. But the response had them stumped.

    “At that point, they were booked out for two and a half years for any sort of maintenance or thinning of trees in Sacramento,” Davison said. “I thought he was kidding.”

    KCRA 3 Investigates confirmed that, for requests the city deems non-emergencies, there is a backlog, often with a wait time of at least one year.

    “It’s been frustrating,” Davison said.

    Sacramento Media & Communications Specialist Gabby Miller, who handles inquiries involving the city’s Urban Forestry Division, declined an interview on the topic.

    Only by email would she say that the root cause of all this stems from staffing shortages and the 2023 storms that did unprecedented damage.

    Here is the prepared statement Miller provided:

    “The City of Sacramento maintains more than 100,000 trees in streets and parks across the city’s 100 square miles. Each tree is pruned on a proactive cycle that typically takes five to seven years to complete.

    “Residents who have concerns about City trees or would like to request pruning are encouraged to use the 311 Customer Service Center, either by dialing 311 or emailing 311@cityofsacramento.org. This system ensures requests are documented and tracked through to completion.

    “The City typically receives more than 500 service requests each month related to tree issues, with numbers increasing significantly during extreme weather. Emergency calls—such as when a tree or branch poses an immediate risk to public safety—are responded to within one hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Non-emergency requests usually receive an initial response within 48 hours. Crews prioritize work based on severity and efficiency, so that as many requests as possible are completed each month.

    “Severe storms in 2023 caused unprecedented damage to trees throughout Sacramento. Combined with staffing shortages in the Urban Forestry section, this created a backlog of non-emergency requests, with many taking a year or longer to address. Despite these challenges, the City has managed to keep up with emergency requests.

    “Substantial efforts have been made to improve the situation, including hiring more staff in Urban Forestry and directing additional resources to tree care service contracts. These steps have already accelerated pruning efforts and begun to reduce the backlog in recent months. While progress has been significant, the City recognizes there is still more work ahead before service levels fully meet public expectations.”

    One East Sacramento resident said he was finally able to get his concern taken care of after reaching out to Councilmember Pluckebaum.

    The councilmember told KCRA 3 Investigates that he usually gets a call a week about a limb falling on a car or a fence.

    However, on New Year’s Day in 2023, the calls to the city seemed endless.

    “That was a really big storm. It was significant and expensive,” Pluckebaum said.

    He said the city has a contract with West Coast Arborists, and the company had to bring in all its arborists from the West Coast to respond.

    “Fourteen hundred people to swarm the city and clear our streets, but it also cleared our budget,” Pluckebaum said.

    Nearly three years later, the city’s still feeling the fallout.

    “Our only answer is to figure out how to either reduce costs and/or raise revenue such to provide for that level of service that the folks expect,” he said.

    “Is there anything in the works to take any of those steps that you know of?” KCRA 3 Investigates’ Lysée Mitri asked.

    “No, unfortunately, it’s probably going to require yet another tax measure. We don’t have another strategy in the near term. We’re looking at budget cuts for the next three years,” Councilmember Pluckebaum said.

    Meanwhile, beyond three years, the job of maintaining trees is only expected to grow.

    In June, the city council voted unanimously to try to double the tree canopy by 2045, focusing on areas that currently lack tree cover. The plan will mean more trees on both public and private property.

    “Voting to increase the tree canopy is like, you know, voting for puppy dogs or apple pie, right? These are uncontroversial types of initiatives. Now, a discussion about how to pay for it is a whole other conversation,” Pluckebaum said.

    Currently, about 10% of trees in Sacramento are maintained by the city. It’s not clear if that would continue to be the case, but the newly adopted Sacramento Urban Forest Plan estimates that full implementation means the city would need an extra $12-13 million a year.

    “I’m all about more trees. Bring it on. I love, I love the trees, but you better have enough maintenance crews to handle what you’ve got going on first before you add any more,” Davison said.

    For many, the current financial landscape is sowing seeds of doubt.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Herd immunity’: A coastal community wants to become fireproof after the Palisades fire

    [ad_1]

    Sunset Mesa, the scenic neighborhood tucked on a bluff between Malibu and Pacific Palisades, might never be the same in the wake of the Palisades fire.

    But resident Karen Martinez sees one potential change as a good thing.

    The January fire torched about 80% of the community’s 500 homes — almost all of them wood-framed. Now, as residents begin the long process of rebuilding, Martinez is pushing her neighbors to chuck the lumber and build with noncombustible materials instead.

    The goal? The housing equivalent of herd immunity, where enough homes are fireproof that the entire community can be protected against future fires. Your home is far safer if your next-door neighbors’ houses aren’t burning down and sending fiery debris and showers of embers into the air.

    The benefits of herd immunity stretch beyond fire defense; some insurance companies have signaled that they’re open to insuring more homes — at cheaper rates — in neighborhoods that feature higher percentages of fireproof homes.

    Rogelio Ramos installs a segment of fire resistant Perfect Block at the start of construction of Karen Martinez’s home in the Sunset Mesa community in Malibu.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    For the last year, Martinez, 62, has become an evangelist for insulated composite concrete forms (ICCF), a building material made from concrete and expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam). She’s been holding Zoom meetings for neighbors, proselytizing just this month when she hosted a community potluck where 70 people watched her lay the first few Perfect Blocks of her fireproof home.

    “I want people to know they have options,” Martinez said. “We don’t have to rebuild with something that’s going to burn again.”

    A Palisades resident for decades, Martinez moved to Sunset Mesa in 2022 following the death of her husband. She’d been aware of ICCF for years, so when her three-bedroom house on Surfwood Road burned down in January, she already knew she wanted to rebuild with it.

    In Southern California’s fire-stricken landscape, a handful of fireproofing trends have emerged — from high-tech solutions such as fire-retardant sprinkler systems, to new building materials such as hempcrete or mass timber, large paneled beams of wood that burn slowly at a rate of a half-inch every hour, giving firefighters more time to stop the fire.

    Martinez chose ICCF for two reasons. For one, it’s fireproof — noncombustible with a four-hour fire rating. It’s also relatively cheap — Martinez paid $27 per block, and her 1,956-square-foot rebuild will require around 600 blocks, which stack like Legos, forming a grid with hollow cores that are then filled with concrete and rebar.

    In total, the shell of her fireproof home cost around $16,000, and the rebuild will cost less than $400 per square foot.

    “I’ve gotten multiple quotes, and this material is the least expensive by far,” Martinez said, taking in the ocean view while watching her team pour concrete the day before her potluck. “Going forward, I’d like to see every single house in this neighborhood built with noncombustible material.”

    In addition to the blocks, the home will feature a lightweight steel roof and dual-pane windows with aluminum frames.

    Her months-long crusade has brought in several believers, including two neighbors who own the lots next to hers. They’re both planning to rebuild with the composite concrete blocks.

    In total, she said around 15 people in Sunset Mesa alone are planning to rebuild with ICCF, as well as 15 more in Pacific Palisades and Altadena. Martinez claims many more Sunset Mesa residents want to, but they’ve been talked out of it by their architects and contractors, who aren’t familiar with the material and claim it’ll slow down their rebuilds.

    In fairness, for Martinez, it did. The material is approved in the city of Los Angeles since it has a Los Angeles Research Report, a review required by the L.A. Department of Building and Safety to make sure a material is safe to use. But since Martinez’s home sits in the unincorporated community of Sunset Mesa, permits are handled by L.A. County, which requires a separate report ensuring that ICCF meets code requirements.

    Eco Building Systems, the company that manufactures the concrete blocks Martinez is using, didn’t have one. So she took it upon herself to get them one — even fronting the $12,000 application fee (which was eventually returned to her through a discount on the blocks).

    Sunset Mesa community members gather at Karen Martinez's home, lost in the Palisades fire, being rebuilt with Perfect Block.

    Members of the Sunset Mesa community gather at Karen Martinez’s homesite.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    The process took months. But now that the report is done, others in Sunset Mesa will have a much quicker time securing building permits.

    “I was the guinea pig,” she said. “Now, everyone can use it.”

    Research shows that in the context of a fire, homes often burn or survive as a group.

    California’s wind-driven fires spread via embers. If one house sets ablaze, the house next door is much more likely to burn. But if a house is fireproof, it can act as a shield for the vulnerable wood homes behind it.

    It’s the reason that newly built neighborhoods such as Orchard Hills in Irvine require higher fireproofing standards for homes on the outer rim of the community.

    The concept of communitywide home-hardening has been dubbed “herd immunity,” a disease-related phrase that suggests that if a large enough portion of a population is immune to a virus, it becomes difficult for an infection to spread.

    It’s a phenomenon that Victor Joseph, chief operating officer of Mercury Insurance, thinks about regularly. Joseph attended Martinez’s potluck and said he’s been surprised by the number of people in Sunset Mesa and the Palisades who are serious about rebuilding with noncombustible materials.

    “They’ve been proactively engaging us to figure out how to rebuild in a way that will be accepted by insurance companies,” he said, adding that he’s hosted two Zoom meetings for locals, each drawing about 100 people.

    Over the summer, Mercury launched a discount for homes that meet its fireproof standards: 50% off for the fire portion of a home insurance plan for houses built to be noncombustible. The company also offers a 15% community discount for neighborhoods that meet its requirements.

    Joseph explained that insurance companies generally avoid insuring too many homes in a given area because if they all get destroyed, the claims will be too expensive to pay out. It’s the age-old rule of not putting all your eggs in one basket.

    But if you build enough fireproof homes to achieve herd immunity, Mercury can justify insuring more homes — and at cheaper rates.

    “If 30 fireproof homes are spread across the Palisades, we’d be happy to insure, but the benefits won’t be as significant,” he said. “But if you have 30 fireproof homes clustered on two blocks? That’s fascinating.”

    Sunset Mesa resident Anita Clark, 91 listens as Karen Martinez, off camera, make a presentation.

    Sunset Mesa resident Anita Clark, 91, who lost her home in the Palisades fire, listens as Karen Martinez makes a presentation urging members of the Sunset Mesa community to rebuild homes with noncombustible materials.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    Sunset Mesa is at a precipice. As of early November, nine building permits have been issued in the community, according to the L.A. County Planning Department, with hundreds of homes still in the planning phase.

    To Martinez, that means a chance for hundreds of homeowners to build in a way that protects not only their homes, but their neighborhoods. To Robert Dugan, CEO of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Assn., it’s a chance to push a neighborhood into becoming a model for the rest of California.

    “Every house matters. If we can get one of every five homes, or one of every two homes, to build noncombustible, the risk paradigm changes dramatically,” he said. “Every house built with fire resilience in mind might be the place where the fire stops.”

    For many fire victims, many of whom are still living in hotels or renting homes, building with wood makes sense. It’s the quickest, often cheapest way to get back home. So Dugan said it’s important for the fireproofing industry to make the choice easier for homeowners, which includes lining up architects and contractors who are ready to build noncombustible homes.

    As a volunteer with the Red Cross, he helped build three homes in Paradise with ICCF and said they can look like any other home. Martinez’s property will be stucco on the exterior, drywall on the inside. You won’t be able to tell it’s made of ICCF.

    In the meantime, Martinez is still settling into her role as homebuilder/advocate/microinfluencer. In addition to constant dialogue with her neighbors, she recently launched an Instagram account with the handle @palisadesfirerebuild to document her journey.

    A few months ago, Martinez was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic cancer — a byproduct of a five-year fight with uveal melanoma. Her tumors are gone, but the fear of getting sick again is adding to the urgency of her mission.

    She got her building permit in late October, poured concrete Nov. 7, and laid the first of the ICCF blocks the following day. She plans to finish the home in a year, shooting for next summer.

    “After the diagnosis, part of me asked if I should take it easy,” she said. “But I want to show that this is possible. I’m plowing forward to finish this and make a difference.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • California leaders say homeowners insurance companies are coming back to the state

    [ad_1]

    Several homeowners insurance companies that had either left the state or limited policies are coming back or committing to staying in California’s market, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Department of insurance said on Wednesday. The development comes about nine months after Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the department overhauled California’s insurance regulations after several companies had either dropped policies or limited them in the state. KCRA 3 was the first to report the update on Wednesday, after Gov. Newsom appeared to tell Bill Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative that a handful of companies were coming back to the state. Newsom made the remarks in New York after Clinton asked Newsom what he thought should be done about the situation, which Newsom called one of the most pressing global issues. “We just had four of our admitted market come back,” Newsom told Clinton. “In the last two days or so we had our fourth come back in. We had a lot of folks who were leaving the market, they simply said it was too expensive and the losses are too significant.”Following the remarks, KCRA 3 asked the California Department of Insurance to confirm. A spokesman for the department said the governor’s remarks were accurate and provided a list of the companies that were committing to staying in California. The spokesman noted the list includes three of the state’s largest insurers. The five companies listed are Mercury, CSAA, USAA, Pacific Specialty and California Casualty. After this story first published Wednesday, both USAA and Mercury clarified in separate statements to KCRA 3 the company never stopped writing coverage in the state. A spokesman for Mercury would not say if the state leaders mischaracterized the situation but said they had “simplified” it.The new rules that lured the companies to return or do more business in the state allow insurance companies to consider new factors when they set premiums, including the likelihood of a catastrophe and the cost insurance companies pay to insure themselves, also known as reinsurance. In exchange, the companies have promised to provide more coverage in high-wildfire risk parts of California. State leaders have also been pushing to bring companies back into the market to reduce the number of properties relying on California’s FAIR plan, the state’s insurance of last resort. The plan provides insurance to those who can’t get private insurance and has been facing significant financial challenges as it takes on more claims. “The Sustainable Insurance Strategy helps restore stability and access to California’s homeowners insurance market,” said Mark Pitchford, the Chief Operating Officer at California Casualty Group in a press release Wednesday. “We appreciate all the work being done by the Commissioner and the Department to make coverage more accessible to homeowners across the state.”All five insurers have requested rate increases of 6.9%, according to Michael Soller, a spokesman for the California Department of Insurance. Soller noted the rate increase is identical to thousands approved under past insurance commissioners, but with a promise to remain and grow in the state. “This is a far cry from what has happened in the past, when insurance companies increased their rates and dropped policies,” Soller told KCRA 3 in an email. “Under Commissioner Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, we are seeing initial signs of market improvement despite the devastating L.A. wildfires. We won’t declare victory prematurely. We will thoroughly review companies’ rate filings to make sure consumers do not pay more than is required.” Speaking with Clinton, the governor acknowledged the new rules will allow for more rapid rate increases.”I think this issue requires leadership at the national level, it is under resourced, under focused. It’s a challenge for me, a challenge for Ron DeSantis, for governors in most states but it’s not top of mind and I think we need to be more focused on it,” Newsom said. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Several homeowners insurance companies that had either left the state or limited policies are coming back or committing to staying in California’s market, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Department of insurance said on Wednesday.

    The development comes about nine months after Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the department overhauled California’s insurance regulations after several companies had either dropped policies or limited them in the state.

    KCRA 3 was the first to report the update on Wednesday, after Gov. Newsom appeared to tell Bill Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative that a handful of companies were coming back to the state. Newsom made the remarks in New York after Clinton asked Newsom what he thought should be done about the situation, which Newsom called one of the most pressing global issues.

    “We just had four of our admitted market come back,” Newsom told Clinton. “In the last two days or so we had our fourth come back in. We had a lot of folks who were leaving the market, they simply said it was too expensive and the losses are too significant.”

    Following the remarks, KCRA 3 asked the California Department of Insurance to confirm. A spokesman for the department said the governor’s remarks were accurate and provided a list of the companies that were committing to staying in California. The spokesman noted the list includes three of the state’s largest insurers. The five companies listed are Mercury, CSAA, USAA, Pacific Specialty and California Casualty.

    After this story first published Wednesday, both USAA and Mercury clarified in separate statements to KCRA 3 the company never stopped writing coverage in the state.

    A spokesman for Mercury would not say if the state leaders mischaracterized the situation but said they had “simplified” it.

    The new rules that lured the companies to return or do more business in the state allow insurance companies to consider new factors when they set premiums, including the likelihood of a catastrophe and the cost insurance companies pay to insure themselves, also known as reinsurance. In exchange, the companies have promised to provide more coverage in high-wildfire risk parts of California.

    State leaders have also been pushing to bring companies back into the market to reduce the number of properties relying on California’s FAIR plan, the state’s insurance of last resort. The plan provides insurance to those who can’t get private insurance and has been facing significant financial challenges as it takes on more claims.

    “The Sustainable Insurance Strategy helps restore stability and access to California’s homeowners insurance market,” said Mark Pitchford, the Chief Operating Officer at California Casualty Group in a press release Wednesday. “We appreciate all the work being done by the Commissioner and the Department to make coverage more accessible to homeowners across the state.”

    All five insurers have requested rate increases of 6.9%, according to Michael Soller, a spokesman for the California Department of Insurance. Soller noted the rate increase is identical to thousands approved under past insurance commissioners, but with a promise to remain and grow in the state.

    “This is a far cry from what has happened in the past, when insurance companies increased their rates and dropped policies,” Soller told KCRA 3 in an email. “Under Commissioner Lara’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, we are seeing initial signs of market improvement despite the devastating L.A. wildfires. We won’t declare victory prematurely. We will thoroughly review companies’ rate filings to make sure consumers do not pay more than is required.”

    Speaking with Clinton, the governor acknowledged the new rules will allow for more rapid rate increases.

    “I think this issue requires leadership at the national level, it is under resourced, under focused. It’s a challenge for me, a challenge for Ron DeSantis, for governors in most states but it’s not top of mind and I think we need to be more focused on it,” Newsom said.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • With fires burning again, is California becoming uninsurable?

    With fires burning again, is California becoming uninsurable?

    [ad_1]

    Thursday marks the beginning of summer, but early wildfires have already scorched the outskirts of L.A. and the Bay Area. Many California homeowners find themselves more vulnerable than ever as major insurers abandon areas threatened by climate change-fueled fires. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara have responded with efforts to ease regulations and boost coverage.

    Insurance industry representative Rex Frazier argues that state leaders have the right idea: Burdensome regulations are making a difficult situation worse. But consumer advocate Jamie Court contends that the state needs to take a harder line by requiring coverage of homeowners who meet fire protection standards.

    California’s sclerotic insurance bureaucracy isn’t helping anyone

    By Rex Frazier

    As the leader of an association of homeowners’ insurers, I frequently hear from anxious Californians who are losing their coverage and wondering whether the situation will get better. My answer is that I am not one of those who believes California is facing an uninsurable future. The problems we face are difficult but solvable.

    The insurance challenges the state is facing today have roots in the past. While the giant wildfires of 2017 and 2018 had a huge impact, requiring insurers to pay claims equivalent to more than 20 years of profits, the state’s insurance problems predate the fires. California’s failure to update the old rules governing insurance rates have long prevented insurers from preparing for a hotter, drier future.

    California’s laws are a national outlier. The rules for projecting wildfire losses, a crucial aspect of calculating insurance rates, are a case in point. California is the only state in the country that requires property insurers to project future wildfire losses based on average wildfire losses over the last 20 years, regardless of where they plan to do business. Every other state allows insurers to base their rates on where they intend to sell insurance, taking into account the degree of fire risk to the properties they plan to insure.

    California is also a national outlier on rate approval in that it’s a “prior approval” state. That means an insurer must receive approval from the California Department of Insurance before it may increase or decrease rates.

    While California law promises a 60-day approval period, it often takes six months or more to get permission to change rates. At times of high inflation, slow approvals require insurers to leave the highest-risk areas or face financial ruin.

    A less visible but nevertheless critical issue is the financial well-being of the FAIR Plan, a pool of insurers providing last-resort coverage. The FAIR plan is growing well beyond its ability to pay claims for large fires. And if it runs out of money, it will charge insurers, as members of the pool, a fee in addition to claims from their own customers for the same fire. If that fee gets large enough, it could devastate insurers. We must address this.

    Fortunately, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has recognized the need to fix these problems. His Sustainable Insurance Strategy would update California’s rate regulations and approval process while requiring insurers to make commitments to cover high-risk areas. The proposal is far from perfect, but we look forward to working with all the interested parties to increase insurance availability and restore the health of the market.

    While state regulations and processes can be changed, we remain vulnerable to forces that are beyond our control. Inflation makes repairing and rebuilding homes much more expensive, driving up rates. Longer dry seasons increase the chances of devastating fires, having the same effect in the short term. We need a system that acknowledges these realities.

    But raising rates is not a long-term solution. Reducing them over time will require consensus on how to handle combustible fuels near valuable property.

    That will take a lot of time and effort. California homeowners’ insurers are ready to do our part to secure an insurable future for the state.

    Rex Frazier is the president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California.

    Newsom needs to look out for homeowners, not insurance companies

    By Jamie Court

    Home insurance companies have put Californians in a bind by refusing to sell new policies or renew many customers, leaving them with few coverage options. That has driven more homeowners into the high-cost, low-benefit FAIR Plan, a pool of insurers required to provide last-resort coverage.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced legislation to allow insurance companies to hike rates more quickly in an effort to woo them back to the state. While that will certainly leave Californians paying higher rates, it’s not likely to get more people covered.

    Insurance companies are refusing to write new policies despite substantial recent rate hikes — an average of 20% for State Farm and 37% for Farmers, for example. What has them spooked is greater exposure through the FAIR Plan, which increasingly covers expensive homes in wildfire-prone areas. Insurers are on the hook for FAIR Plan claims, and their exposure increases with market participation, so they limit their participation.

    Only freeing people from the FAIR Plan will solve this. The most practical way to do that is to require insurers to cover people who harden their homes against fire. We have mandatory health and auto insurance, so why shouldn’t we have it for homes that meet standards?

    Hardening is expensive enough that most homeowners are unlikely to do it without guaranteed coverage. Mandating insurance is therefore the best way to mitigate wildfire risks.

    Mitigation efforts are already working, with major claim events dwindling in recent years. Moreover, insurers recovered billions from the utilities responsible for major fire losses in 2017 and 2018.

    The current crisis was precipitated not so much by wildfires as by investment losses and rising construction costs. Insurers responded by tightening underwriting and raising rates.

    Insurance companies got their hikes, but they refuse to write new business here until they get more. Unfortunately, Newsom and Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara are ready to give them what they want.

    Last week, Lara proposed regulations attempting to address the crisis. Echoing a legislative proposal that failed last year, they would allow companies to raise rates based on black-box climate models. Florida tried a similar approach, and its rates are now about double California’s. Florida’s insurer of last resort covers 20% of its homeowners, roughly five times the share in California.

    The proposed regulations purport to require insurers to increase sales to homeowners in “distressed areas” by 5%. However, they would not require them to charge prices consumers can afford. The requirement to cover these areas could also be waived if an insurer shows it’s “taking reasonable steps to fulfill its insurer commitment.” And the plan gives companies two years to comply but lets them start charging all policyholders higher rates immediately.

    Newsom cheered the proposal, essentially arguing that California’s insurance rates are too damn low. He didn’t mention that California insurers’ profits have generally outpaced the national average over the last 20 years.

    Newsom’s latest legislative proposal would limit public participation in rate-setting by cutting out so-called intervenors such as Consumer Watchdog, which can challenge unnecessary increases and has saved consumers more than $6 billion over 22 years.

    Throwing more money at insurers won’t end the crisis; requiring them to cover responsible homeowners will.

    Jamie Court is the president of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A smashed Polaris Slingshot, friends inside the CHP. How investigators unraveled an insurance plot

    A smashed Polaris Slingshot, friends inside the CHP. How investigators unraveled an insurance plot

    [ad_1]

    The scheme had a lot of moving parts, but was surprisingly simple.

    The Inland Empire Automobile Insurance Task Force, which has been investigating the plot for nearly two years, said it unfolded like this: Andre Angelo Reyes, 36, allegedly purchased traffic collision reports that contained personal information of drivers involved in crashes across Southern California from Rosa Isela Santistevan, a 55-year-old California Highway Patrol employee.

    Investigators say Reyes would give the documents to a third individual, Esmeralda Parga, 26, who would call the drivers and pretend to be from their insurance company. She would allegedly coordinate for their damaged cars to be taken to a specific repair center, CA Collision, whose owner, Anthony Gomez, 35, was also in on the scheme, authorities said.

    Then the repair shop would contact the insurance companies and demand cash to have the cars released, authorities said.

    Investigators allege the scheme resulted in 19 fraudulent claims resulting in a loss of more than $353,000 to insurance companies. This month, a total of 15 people involved in the scheme, including Reyes, of Corona; Santistevan, of Irvine; Parga, of Pomona; and Gomez, of Jurupa Valley, were charged with insurance fraud, grand theft by trick and false impersonation, state investigators wrote in a press release. The others were:

    • Ezequiel Baltazar Orozco, 30, of Los Angeles
    • Antonio Terrazas Perez Jr., 19, of Los Angeles
    • Erika Garcia, 31, of Los Angeles
    • Israel Avila Sandoval, 45, of Pomona
    • Luis Alberto Ramirez Jr., 32, of San Bernardino
    • Robert Arzac, 49, of West Covina
    • Antonio Ramirez Perez, 44, of Los Angeles
    • Brian Anthony Lopez, 25, of Anaheim
    • Emily Marie Boatman, 26, of Ontario
    • Ricardo Parga Jr., 23, of Pomona
    • Steven Anthony Alfaro, 38, of Buena Park

    The Inland Empire Automobile Insurance Task Force, which includes representatives from the California Department of Insurance, the California Highway Patrol, the San Bernardino County district attorney’s office and the Riverside County district attorney’s office, launched its investigation in November 2022 after it was discovered that a CHP employee was apparently selling traffic collision reports.

    Investigators say the scheme began after Reyes donated to several CHP events and parties and befriended Santistevan and other CHP employees.

    While executing search warrants on various properties during the investigation, authorities said they found evidence, including a video, of another type of insurance fraud called “collusive collisions,” in which participants intentionally crash cars to collect insurance payments.

    The video showed someone driving a Polaris Slingshot through a darkened road at night, blasting hip-hop music. The video cuts to someone doing donuts in the vehicle while another person films it. The next scene shows a BMW slamming into the front of the Slingshot. The man filming the crash says, “Oops.”

    Authorities said the individuals involved in the scam claimed the damage resulted from two separate crashes that occurred on a freeway.

    “And that’s just how we do it,” the unidentified man says in the video as the two cars are being loaded onto a tow truck. “Two birds killed in one shot.”

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Fry

    Source link

  • Amid political IVF debates, parent hopefuls struggle to afford fertility care in California

    Amid political IVF debates, parent hopefuls struggle to afford fertility care in California

    [ad_1]

    In between chemotherapy, a double mastectomy and all the other medical appointments that come with a cancer diagnosis, Katie McKnight rushed to start the in vitro fertilization process in hopes that she could one day give birth when she recovered.

    McKnight, 34, of Richmond, Calif., was diagnosed in 2020 with a fast-spreading form of breast cancer. IVF can help boost chances of pregnancy for cancer patients concerned about the impacts of the disease and its treatment on fertility. The process involves collecting eggs from ovaries and fertilizing them with sperm in a lab, then implanting them in a uterus.

    But after having begun the process — being sedated to retrieve her eggs and paying hundreds of dollars annually to properly store the embryos made with her husband — McKnight can’t afford right now to get the embryos out of a freezer.

    Katie McKnight, 34, of Richmond, Calif., takes a photo before her first egg retrieval for IVF after a breast cancer diagnosis in 2020.

    (Katie McKnight)

    “You either have to be able to access a lot of money, or you just keep them frozen and suspended there. It’s such a weird place to be,” McKnight said earlier this month as she prepared to head into her fifth reconstructive breast surgery. “I got this far, now how am I going to finish this? How am I going to actually realize this dream?”

    California — celebrated by women’s advocates as a reproductive health haven — does not require that insurance companies cover IVF.

    McKnight, who serves on the board of Bay Area Young Survivors, a support group for young breast cancer patients, is among those lobbying for state legislation to change that. She and her husband hope to implant an embryo as soon as this year, worried that time is of the essence as her cancer has the potential to spread to her ovaries. McKnight has health insurance through her job at an environmental research nonprofit but it does not cover IVF.

    On average, IVF costs Californians at least $24,000 out of pocket, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Cost varies depending on treatment — patients typically require multiple rounds of IVF to be successful — and whether employers provide insurance coverage for the procedure. Twenty-seven percent of companies with more than 500 employees offered IVF insurance nationwide, according to a 2021 survey.

    Under a bill signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, McKnight was able to have her egg retrievals — a first step in the IVF process — covered by insurance ahead of lifesaving chemotherapy, which can cause infertility. Medical patients who face infertility because of treatment are insured under that law, but that coverage stops short of including fertilization and embryo transfer.

    A new bill has been introduced in the state Legislature this year that would require that large insurance companies provide comprehensive coverage for the treatment of infertility, including IVF.

    But the bill could be costly and faces an uphill battle as the state grapples with a multibillion-dollar budget deficit. Similar proposals have failed in the past, including an attempt last year that never made it to the governor’s desk, facing opposition by insurance companies that said new mandates would result in higher premiums for all.

    IVF is especially important to McKnight because it has allowed her through genetic testing to identify which embryos have the BRCA gene mutation, which is hereditary and significantly increases the chance of breast cancer. She has decided to discard those embryos because of concerns about passing cancer on to her children.

    An embryologist in a lab setting

    An embryologist works at the Virginia Center for Reproductive Medicine in Reston, Va., in 2019.

    (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

    McKnight cried when talking about recent political debates over IVF happening nationwide after an Alabama court ruled in February that frozen embryos can be considered “children” and that those who destroy them can be held liable for wrongful death.

    The decision disrupted IVF appointments in Alabama, and state lawmakers there rushed to create legislation aimed to protect the procedure. But uncertainty remains about access amid outstanding legal questions.

    More than a dozen states have introduced “fetal personhood” protection laws this year. Those measures could potentially sweep IVF into religious arguments opposing abortion rights and stoking fears about further reproductive health restrictions after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision rolled back a federal abortion rights guarantee.

    “It terrifies me. It’s unfathomable to me,” McKnight said. “I do not want to put a child into this world that has to go through all of the hard stuff that I’ve lived, and I feel like that is my choice.”

    Infertility is common. According to the CDC, about 1 in 5 married women of childbearing age are unable to get pregnant after one year of trying.

    More than 11,000 babies were born in California in 2021 using assisted reproductive technology such as IVF — nearly 3% of all infants born in the state that year, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

    More than a dozen states, including New York, Arkansas and Connecticut, mandate that health plans provide some coverage for IVF.

    The American Society for Reproductive Medicine said that California — home to the most progressive abortion laws in the country — is failing to fulfill its role as a “reproductive freedom” state.

    “California still has significant work to do to ensure that all people can make personal decisions about their reproductive lives and futures. True reproductive freedom means that all people can decide if and when to start or grow a family,” the group said in a statement in support of SB 729.

    In addition to extending insurance coverage to IVF, SB 729, introduced by state Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), would also redefine “infertility” in health plans, extending services to LGBTQ+ couples who don’t meet current standards to secure fertility services.

    Most health plans that do offer IVF coverage measure infertility based on whether a man and woman fail to get pregnant after a year of unprotected sex, excluding from coverage LGBTQ+ couples seeking to use fertility services to start a family.

    The new bill would broaden the definition of infertility to include “a person’s inability to reproduce either as an individual or with their partner without medical intervention.”

    The issue is personal for Menjivar. She and her wife recently chose to delay plans to start a family through fertility services such as IVF and instead buy a home, after weighing the costs. She said she has friends who have traveled to Mexico for cheaper fertility care.

    “When we talk about Alabama … we have barriers like that in California. The physical barriers exist in California, where people cannot afford this,” Menjivar said.

    Sen. Caroline Menjivar and former California Senate leader Toni Atkins.

    California Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), left, and former Senate leader Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) at the state Capitol.

    (Fred Greaves / For CalMatters)

    The bill has been opposed by the California Assn. of Health Plans and a number of insurance companies that warn that such single-issue mandates lead to increased premiums for business owners and enrollees.

    According to a legislative analysis of the potential costs conducted last year, the California Health Benefit Review Program estimated employers and enrollees would spend a total of an additional $183 million in the first year of the bill’s implementation, and nearly double that the following year. California could face potentially tens of millions more in separate costs, according to that analysis, due to increases in premiums for state employees.

    “While this bill is well-intentioned, it will unintentionally exacerbate health care affordability issues,” the California Chamber of Commerce, which also opposed the bill, said in a statement.

    The latest cost estimate reflects Democrats’ attempts to narrow the bill and drive the price down, exempting small health plans, religious employers and Medi-Cal — which provides insurance to low-income Californians — from the proposed mandate to cover IVF.

    New IVF policy debates have posed a political quagmire for some Republicans who have used “personhood” arguments to oppose abortion but do not want to see IVF access encroached.

    California Assembly Republicans — some of whom are opposed to increasing abortion access — introduced a resolution last month calling on the state to declare that it “recognizes and protects” access to IVF for women “struggling with fertility issues” and encouraged the same at the federal level. The resolution also calls on Alabama to overturn its ruling.

    “IVF has helped so many families actually have children so we need to make sure we’re protecting access to it,” said Assemblymember Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), who co-authored Assembly Concurrent Resolution 154. “We can’t go backward on IVF.”

    But several state Republicans who support that resolution opposed last year’s attempt to insure IVF in California.

    The insurance bill did not make it to the Assembly last year, and Hoover said he is unsure of how he will vote if it makes it to his house this year, voicing skepticism about the costs to small-business owners and taxpayers.

    For Democrats like Menjivar, the Republican-led resolution — which specifies that IVF is for women struggling with fertility issues and does not mention LGBTQ+ families — is viewed as a farce.

    “It’s all talk,” she said. “This does absolutely nothing, there’s no meat to it whatsoever.”

    Menjivar said that she will not support that resolution without changes. She is angry about “hypocrisy” she’s seen from Republicans nationwide who she believes voted for antiabortion policies that have led to the IVF problems arising now.

    “They made their bed and they’re trying to squirm out of it and they’re getting stuck,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Mackenzie Mays

    Source link

  • The Mothers Who Aren’t Waiting to Give Their Children Cystic-Fibrosis Drugs

    The Mothers Who Aren’t Waiting to Give Their Children Cystic-Fibrosis Drugs

    [ad_1]

    At six months pregnant, Sonja Lee Finnegan flew from Switzerland to France to buy $20,000 worth of drugs from a person she had never met. The drug she was after, Trikafta, is legal in Switzerland and approved for cystic fibrosis, a rare genetic disease that fills the lungs with thick mucus. Finnegan could not get it from a doctor, because she herself does not have cystic fibrosis. But the baby she was carrying inside her does, and she wanted to start him on the Trikafta as early as possible—before he was even born.

    She felt so strongly because Trikafta is, without exaggeration, a miracle drug. As I wrote in the latest issue of this magazine, the daily pills have in the past five years transformed cystic fibrosis from a fatal disease into one where most patients can live an essentially normal life. Trikafta, a combination of three drugs, is not a cure, and it does not entirely reverse organ damage already caused by CF, but patients who grew up believing they would die young are instead saving for retirement. And children born with CF today can expect to live to a ripe old age, as long as they start the drugs early.

    How early is best? The drugs are officially approved for CF patients as young as 2, but a handful of enterprising mothers in the United States have gotten it prescribed off-label, to treat children diagnosed in the womb. Where doctors are more cautious, mothers are still pushing the limits of when to start the drugs. A mom in Canada sent her husband across the border to get Trikafta from someone in the United States. And Finnegan flew to France to meet a patient willing to sell their excess supply.

    Getting hold of Trikafta is in fact the hardest part. Parents told me of both insurance plans and obstetricians skeptical of a powerful new medication never tested in pregnant women—and not without reason. Trikafta has side effects, and it is new enough that not all of its ramifications are fully understood. But Finnegan pored over all the research she could find and decided that Trikafta was worth it. For $20,000, she bought a five-months supply—a relative bargain compared with Trikafta’s list price of $300,000-plus a year in the United States.

    To her, it was worth $20,000 for her son to avoid CF complications that can require major surgery at birth. It was worth $20,000 to prevent permanent damage to his organs that begins even in utero. She felt lucky she could afford it at all. Trikafta in pregnancy is not currently standard practice, but a miracle drug was out there. For her son, she would figure out a way to get it.


    The very first expecting moms on Trikafta were women with CF taking the drugs for themselves. Not long after the medication became available, in the fall of 2019, doctors noticed a baby boom in the CF community. Trikafta, it turns out, affects more than the lungs; it can also reverse the infertility common in women with CF, thought to be caused by unusually thick cervical mucus. (Most men with CF are born infertile, because the vas deferens, which carries sperm, never develops.)

    Experts worried at first about what Trikafta could do to developing fetuses. “People were like, ‘Don’t do this. We don’t know if it’s a teratogen’”—a substance that causes birth defects, says Ted Liou, the director of the adult-CF center at the University of Utah. (The CF doctors quoted in this article have all conducted clinical trials for or received speaking or consulting fees from Vertex, the manufacturer of Trikafta and several other drugs for CF.) That fear turned out to be unfounded: Hundreds of babies later, there has been, at least anecdotally, no uptick in severe birth defects.

    Doctors started to see hints that Trikafta in utero could help babies with CF too. Of the hundreds of children born to mothers on Trikafta, only a few of the babies had CF themselves. This is because cystic fibrosis is a recessive disorder, meaning a mother with CF could have a child with CF only if the father also passed on a CF mutation. But the first documented case came to the attention of Christopher Fortner, the director of the CF center and pediatric-CF program at SUNY Upstate, who published a case report in 2021. Trikafta, he told me, made a clear difference for this baby girl.

    Cystic fibrosis is caused by an imbalance of salt and water in the body, and this affects developing organs even before birth. One in five infants with CF are born with an intestinal blockage caused by meconium—the normally sticky black stool of newborns—that has turned too thick and hard to pass. This is called meconium ileus, and in the worst cases, the intestines can rupture. Emergency surgery is necessary. Elsewhere in the body, the pancreas never forms properly with CF. “By the time they’re born, their pancreas is really not a functional organ,” Fortner said. Adults on Trikafta still have to take pancreatic enzymes with every meal, but there is some evidence that young children can gain pancreatic function if they begin the CF drugs early enough.

    When this baby girl was born, though, her meconium and her pancreas levels were normal from the very start; the standard newborn screening for CF would have never caught her. Fortner started her on enzymes as a precaution, but he stopped them after a week. She is 3 years old now and in preschool. Unlike generations of CF kids before her, she will never have to see the school nurse for enzymes every time she wants to eat. And she may never suffer the recurring lung infections that once made CF ultimately fatal. “The life she’s living,” Fortner said, “that was a whole lot like a cure to me.”


    Moms who do not have CF themselves have a much harder time getting their unborn children on Trikafta. In 2021, Yolanda Huffhines’s second child was diagnosed with CF prenatally, after a genetic test was recommended because Huffhines’s first child had cystic fibrosis. The diagnosis did not come as a shock this time, but she began to worry when the baby showed signs of meconium ileus while still in utero.

    After coming across a study in ferrets, Huffhines brought the idea of Trikafta to her doctors, who were not all enthused. Her obstetrician in particular was against it. But she found that CF doctors were more willing to weigh the well-known risks of cystic fibrosis—especially meconium ileus—against the less well-known risks of Trikafta. She asked Patrick Flume, who directs the adult-CF center at the Medical University of South Carolina, what he would do if it were his wife and child. He told her he would get Trikafta, and he agreed to help.

    Even with a sympathetic doctor, getting Trikafta wasn’t easy. First, Flume tried giving her a stash from a patient who no longer needed it, which was vetoed because his hospital couldn’t ensure that it had been properly stored. Then he asked the manufacturer, Vertex, which also said no. (The company told me it couldn’t provide Trikafta to anyone outside the drug’s official indications.) Finally, Flume told me, he decided to write a prescription as if the mother were his patient. When the insurance company asked if she had at least one copy of a specific CF mutation that Trikafta was developed for, he answered yes, truthfully. Because Huffhines is a carrier, she does have one copy. She started Trikafta at 32 weeks, and by the time her daughter was born, the meconium ileus had disappeared.

    Huffhines’s experience on Trikafta was not entirely smooth, though. The drugs come with some well-documented side effects, such as cataracts and liver damage, that have to be monitored, Flume told me, as with any new drug. Although Trikafta during pregnancy went fine for Huffhines, she started to experience unusual symptoms when she continued the medication so her daughter could get it through breast milk. Her usual migraines started going “through the roof,” and her scheduled blood work revealed that her liver enzymes had gone haywire—a sign of liver damage. She had to stop.

    Quitting Trikafta cold turkey could be harmful for newborns, though, which Huffines knew from studying the ferret research. (Suddenly withdrawing, Fortner told me, may cause pancreatitis.) She wondered: Was it possible to give a baby Trikafta directly? The pills would be too big, obviously, but her husband had scales for gunpowder that could weigh down to the milligram. She got a new one overnighted, and she began crushing the pills to give to her daughter—a technique that has since been taught to other moms. Her daughter did well. Huffhines’s doctors ended up publishing a case report in 2022—the first documenting a carrier of CF taking Trikafta.

    The long-term impacts of being on Trikafta in utero still need to be studied. The oldest child is still only 3. In adults, a small minority who have started Trikafta have reported sudden and severe anxiety, insomnia, depression, or other neuropsychiatric symptoms. The link is not fully proven or understood in adults, and it’s completely unexplored for fetal brain development. Elena Schneider-Futschik, a pharmacologist at the University of Melbourne, told me she is collaborating with researchers in the United Kingdom to get long-term developmental data on children exposed to Trikafta before birth. For now, she said, “we don’t know.”

    Fortner, who has heard from several pregnant mothers since his first case report, said he does not deter parents already set on getting Trikafta, but he does not, in all cases, push them toward it, either. Given the unknowns, he’s not sure that the benefits outweigh the risks. The clearest exceptions are cases of meconium ileus, in which doing nothing comes with its own costs. Flume told me about a recent patient whose baby was showing signs of an intestinal blockage and whose insurance initially denied Trikafta. The medication was eventually approved—but the mom went into labor the day she was due to start. Her baby needed emergency surgery. “This is something that did not need to happen,” he said.


    By the time Finnegan, in Switzerland, went looking for Trikafta last year, she had the earlier cases as models. Her baby wasn’t showing signs of meconium ileus, but she didn’t want to wait until he did, if he was going to end up down that path. Although her doctors were supportive, they could not get her Trikafta. That’s why she had to take unorthodox measures.

    She took her first pill in August, and her son was born in October with a working pancreas and no intestinal blockage. He is far too young for this to matter, but she hopes that the Trikafta allowed his vas deferens to develop normally too. Someday, he might want children of his own, and the impacts of getting Trikafta in utero might carry over into the next generation.

    Finnegan has been documenting her experience on social media, where she says her posts have inspired other pregnants moms to get on Trikafta for their unborn children. She knows of about 20 now, and after she got in touch with Schneider-Futschik, the researcher decided to survey these moms too. Meanwhile, Finnegan is sharing the stories of other moms as well, making note of details such as how long the mom was on Trikafta, what side effects she experienced, whether meconium ileus was resolved, and if insurance covered the drugs—a case series, of sorts, presented on Instagram. They are still few enough that every case is notable. In the future, though, all of this might become the utterly unremarkable standard of care.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • 'They're not super forthcoming': This dentist says don't ask if your oral health provider takes your insurance – you could end up paying $1,200 for a root canal. Do this instead

    'They're not super forthcoming': This dentist says don't ask if your oral health provider takes your insurance – you could end up paying $1,200 for a root canal. Do this instead

    [ad_1]

    ‘They’re not super forthcoming’: This dentist says don’t ask if your oral health provider takes your insurance – you could end up paying $1,200 for a root canal. Do this instead

    Have you ever wondered why trips to the dentist can be so expensive, even if you have insurance? It’s not because of inflation — it might be something you’ve said.

    In a recent viral TikTok, Dr. Brady Smith responds to a commenter who asked why a root canal cost $1,200 over and above the portion of the bill covered by insurance.

    Don’t miss

    The Washington-based dentist says that the commenter’s bill probably got so high as a result of a straightforward question: “Do you take my insurance?”

    “It’s a bad question,” Brady says. What you really want to ask, he suggests, is “Are you in-network with my insurance?”

    “You will pay more every time at an out-of-network office, and sometimes that’s not fully transparent,” Brady says.

    He goes on to say: “It’s one of the less transparent yet common practices of many dental offices that are out-of-network.”

    Asking the right question, according to the good doctor, can mean paying $200 or $300 for a root canal instead of $1,200.

    Here’s how to ensure you don’t get drilled by extra fees at the dentist office.

    Know your network

    It’s not enough merely to know whether your dental office will accept your insurance plan.

    If the office accepts your plan but isn’t part of your insurance company’s provider network, Brady says, “they can bill the insurance company but they can tack on literally any amount that they want to.”

    This is what leads to a situation where a patient pays $1,200 out of pocket for a root canal that’s also covered by insurance.

    “They’re not super forthcoming in many situations with that information,” Brady adds.

    Insurance companies often contractually require the dental offices in their networks to cover a full 80% of dental fees, leaving the patient to cover only 20%, known as the “co-pay,” out of pocket.

    If you have employee-sponsored insurance, ask your HR rep to go through your dental benefits with you or call up your insurance company yourself to make sure you know what health providers are in-network and exactly what is and isn’t covered for you and your family.

    Read more: Owning real estate for passive income is one of the biggest myths in investing — but here’s how you can actually make it work

    Don’t hoard your insurance

    Most insurance plans run out by the end of the year. So even though you may not want to use every dentist dollar in January, you’re leaving money on the table by not using your dental benefits at all.

    Not only are you losing money in the long term, but also in the short term. Those who skip dental visits may not realize they have serious oral health problems like gingivitis or cavities. These not only cause horrible mouth issues but also can extend to the rest of your body. For instance, the National Institute on Aging found that gum disease is linked to dementia.

    By the time you get dementia, you may no longer have an employee benefits plan because you’ll be retired. And don’t think that Medicare will save you. The agency website says that it doesn’t cover “most” dental care.

    So unless you have a very large emergency fund, your lack of dentist visits can create major unexpected health care costs, now and in the future.

    So take advantage of your dental benefits while you have them. It’ll keep you smiling long into your old age.

    Use your health savings account

    If you’ve used up all your benefits, but still need more dental work done, consider using your health savings account (HSA).

    An HSA functions as a savings account for health-related expenses, according to the U.S. government website Health Insurance Marketplace. Though some employees offer HSAs, you can qualify as an individual. The IRS oversees the program to ensure that you have a high-deductible health plan that qualifies you for an HSA.

    The IRS has increased the 2024 maximum deductibles for HSAs to $4,150 for individuals and $8,300 for families.

    Even if you don’t end up needing your HSA, you can invest the money from it. So either way, it’s a win-win for your mouth and your wallet.

    What to read next

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link