Who's Your 'Navigator'?

It was quite impressive to see over 1,000 agents march on Capitol Hill this month to make sure Congress doesn't take their role for granted in the helter-skelter debate to reshape the health insurance system.

Agents have always been able to influence lawmakers, not only with the power of their arguments but with their persistence and people skills. Independent agencies are the bedrock of most communities and do not shy away from the political arena to protect clients as well as their own interests.

I am eager to see the health insurance shell game reformed at last so everyone is affordably covered and gets the treatment–especially the preventive care–they need.

It's a disgrace that over 50 million now go bare. Some lack coverage because they're unable to pay, and others due to preexisting conditions. A chunk are uninsured because they simply refuse to pay their fair share, perhaps believing they are immortal and never will need coverage, or selfishly rationalizing that emergency rooms will take care of them no matter what.

However, the way to mend this badly broken system is not to give independent agents the bum's rush, since they've been on the front lines with employers, struggling to maintain coverage for workers at a viable, if not necessarily reasonable cost.

Luckily, agents got good news as soon as they sat down in D.C. after their “fly in” from all over the country.

One of their big concerns is a so-called “navigator” initiative proposed that would publicly finance entities to “conduct public education, distribute fair and impartial information regarding health plans, [and] assist with enrollment and provide information.” However, agents inexplicably would have been barred from performing these services, despite their expertise in placing and negotiating coverage.

As reported by our Washington Editor, Arthur D. Postal, agents were cheered to hear during their early morning briefing that the night before, the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee had an amendment proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to add “other licensed insurance agents and brokers” to the navigator cadre.

“The amendment also mandates that any information given to consumers who access the system be provided by 'qualified, and licensed, if appropriate,' personnel,” Mr. Postal noted.

That's a relief, because if the amendment sticks as this reform bill makes its uncertain way through Congress, agents–as natural “navigators”–would continue their current role, helping consumers decipher the health coverage information provided through Internet “gateways” or “exchanges.”

However, their joy will be short-lived if President Barack Obama and members of Congress get their way and succeed in creating a public insurance plan as part of the reform bill.

This may actually be why Congress originally tried to eject agents from the “navigator” process. Perhaps they believed that since agents work on commission, their loyalty would naturally be to the private insurers struggling to compete with any nonprofit, government-backed public plan.

Of course, I would assume that if a public plan would merely be one option among many in any insurance “exchange,” they would pay agents a fee for placing policyholders with them. If not, how do they expect to get business? Do they honestly think consumers–especially corporate buyers–will be able to “navigate” the complex world of health insurance without an agent?

Or do they secretly agree with critics that a public plan will do away with all private competition? You don't need a navigator if you only have one direction to go.

Sam Friedman is Editor In Chief of National Underwriter. To respond to his column, e-mail sfriedman@nuco.com, go to his blog at www.NUSamSoapbox.com, or follow @NUSam on Twitter.