CPAN testifies on the dangers of implementing limited protection coverage policies

Kroese: Limited protections means accident victims, including children, won’t get the care they need 

LANSING, Mich.—(Feb. 27, 2019)— Two representatives from the CPAN Board of Directors, Margaret Kroese and Steve Sinas, today testified in front of the Senate Insurance and Banking Committee on the dangers of enacting limited protection coverage auto insurance plans – otherwise known as Personal Injury Protection (PIP) choice. The following statement can be attributed to Kroese, who is the executive director of neurorehabilitation at Hope Network.

“Limited protection coverage means that catastrophically injured auto accident victims – including children – won’t get the essential care they need. That outcome is guaranteed in any proposal that includes so-called PIP choice. This is a ‘solution’ that will only create more problems.”

“According to the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, of the almost 10 million people living in Michigan in 2017, 78,394 were injured in a car crash, or one out of every 127. Over six thousand people needed hospitalization – their injuries were severe. Some of those injured were left with permanent disabilities.”

“I believe there is a better, simpler way to bring down costs without taking away the coverage.  The proposals put forward by CPAN offer efficiencies to the current system. They include a fee schedule, reduction in litigation, elimination of non-driving rating factors, cracking down on fraud throughout the system, and increased oversight on rate setting.”

“California, which has the strongest consumer protections in the country, has seen the slowest premium growth in the country, thanks to enacting exactly the kinds of reforms that CPAN has advocated for. To argue that CPAN’s proposed reforms won’t lead to rate reduction misses this important proven result in California.”

“These wide sweeping reforms will result in substantial saving to policyholders across the state without forcing families into bankruptcy, shifting the cost of care onto the back of taxpayers (as we’ve seen in other states like Colorado which saw a 205% increase in Medicaid costs associated with just care related to motor vehicle accidents when they ended no-fault), or depriving accident victims of the care they need to recover as much as they can and to live as independently as possible.”