Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Term Care Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel debates modernizing long-term care insurance rules and public hearing authority
Summary
Lawmakers and the insurance commissioner debated SB 6 10, which would codify standards for long-term care insurance form and rate review and authorize (but not require) public hearings on filings; consumer witnesses described steep premium increases and urged stronger transparency and mandatory hearings.
Senator Denise Ricciardi introduced SB 6 10 as an update to New Hampshire’s long-term care insurance framework, saying the bill clarifies regulatory standards, preserves consumer protections, and allows — but does not require — public hearings on form and rate filings.
DJ Betancourt, commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department, told the committee the market is shaped by historical mispricing: early long-term care products were designed with faulty lapse-rate assumptions, and insurers are now seeking large premium increases to remain solvent. He described two policy poles: regulators could deny increases and risk carrier insolvency, or approve increases and risk higher costs to consumers; the proposed bill, he said, seeks a middle road that protects consumers while allowing regulated innovation.
Policyholders and advisers gave the most pointed testimony. Harold (Hal) Sullivan, a certified financial planner, described receiving an 88% renewal increase over four years on his own policy and urged the committee to require public hearings or an extended comment period before approving rate increases. Ron Evans and other policyholders recounted premium growth over decades (examples included total increases of roughly 100% since purchase), said carriers had stopped selling new policies (reducing the risk pool), and warned cancellations would shift costs to Medicaid.
Committee members pressed department officials on whether the bill’s standards (for example, the phrasing that coverage must not be "contrary to the best interest of the public") were sufficiently objective and whether the optional public-hearing language should become mandatory. Roni Karnes (department counsel) noted the "not contrary to the best interest of the public" standard already appears in statute (chapter 400) and that making hearings mandatory would be a large operational change for the department.
The hearing closed after public comment. Advocates asked the committee to consider making the public-hearing provision mandatory or to require an extended comment period for affected policyholders; the department said it would work with the legislature on language but cautioned about resource impacts of a mandatory hearing requirement.
