http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_SN_2268.html?rev=20521 <p>S. 2268 would require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third party review processes for disputed claims.</p> <h2 id="toc0"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Long Term Care Insurance Integrity Act of 2007 - Requires an insurance issuer that offers a long term care insurance plan to implement claims dispute resolution procedures that: (1) are designed to expeditiously resolve disputes; (2) provide for alternative means of dispute resolution involving independent third-party review by entities that are mutually acceptable to the issuer and the enrollee, with the reviewer's decision being binding on the issuer; and (3) ensure that an enrollee is eligible to obtain claims review only to the extent and in the manner provided for in the applicable insurance contract. Allows an enrollee to appeal the decision of an independent reviewer to an appropriate state court as provided for under state law.</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc1"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 10/31/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc2"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc3"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 20521@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_SN_2268.html?rev=13072 <p>S. 2268 would require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third party review processes for disputed claims.</p> <h2 id="toc4"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc5"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc6"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc7"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 13072@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_SN_2268.html?rev=13073 <p>S. 2268 would require issuers of long term care insurance to establish third party review processes for disputed claims.</p> <h2 id="toc8"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc9"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 10/31/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc10"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc11"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 13073@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_2268.html 10/31/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 30478@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT