<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CMS Guidance On Scope Of Appointment Form</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/</link>
	<description>News and Information affecting Senior Market Insurance Agents.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:29:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-3744</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Craig]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-3744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John:

I&#039;m agreeing with Brenda, but I&#039;ll elaborate a little.  There are two different regulations here:  (1) Unsolicited contact and (2) Scope of Appointment.  

If the client contacted you, this is NOT unsolicited, so you don&#039;t have to worry about the need for a client relationship.  Once they call your office, you are &quot;out of the woods&quot; with the whole unsolicited thing.  They might ask you, &quot;How did they get your number?&quot; but the client got your phone number totally legitimately, so I really don&#039;t see the issue here.

The other issue is the Scope.  You would still need to have the Scope signed in advance of the appointment.  This is a completely different requirement from the &quot;unsolicited contact&quot; regulation.  

I think you have a very strong case that you didn&#039;t violate the &quot;unsolicited contact&quot; marketing regulation, but if you didn&#039;t get the Scope of Appointment completed, you would have a problem with that.

If this isn&#039;t clear, you can give me a call to discuss!

Craig]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John:</p>
<p>I&#8217;m agreeing with Brenda, but I&#8217;ll elaborate a little.  There are two different regulations here:  (1) Unsolicited contact and (2) Scope of Appointment.  </p>
<p>If the client contacted you, this is NOT unsolicited, so you don&#8217;t have to worry about the need for a client relationship.  Once they call your office, you are &#8220;out of the woods&#8221; with the whole unsolicited thing.  They might ask you, &#8220;How did they get your number?&#8221; but the client got your phone number totally legitimately, so I really don&#8217;t see the issue here.</p>
<p>The other issue is the Scope.  You would still need to have the Scope signed in advance of the appointment.  This is a completely different requirement from the &#8220;unsolicited contact&#8221; regulation.  </p>
<p>I think you have a very strong case that you didn&#8217;t violate the &#8220;unsolicited contact&#8221; marketing regulation, but if you didn&#8217;t get the Scope of Appointment completed, you would have a problem with that.</p>
<p>If this isn&#8217;t clear, you can give me a call to discuss!</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brenda Jo</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-3741</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brenda Jo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-3741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the client contacted your agency, couldn&#039;t the discussion include that the sales person is not available to see her but you have another agent who can assist her and then send out the Sales Appt Form with a return envelope allowing you or another agency agent to see the client.  Client initiated call, okay.  SACF out ahead of time and returned, okay.  Sometimes these regulations are not very professional-friendly and often misunderstood why they are necessary by the clients but it is what it is...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When the client contacted your agency, couldn&#8217;t the discussion include that the sales person is not available to see her but you have another agent who can assist her and then send out the Sales Appt Form with a return envelope allowing you or another agency agent to see the client.  Client initiated call, okay.  SACF out ahead of time and returned, okay.  Sometimes these regulations are not very professional-friendly and often misunderstood why they are necessary by the clients but it is what it is&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JOHN</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-3739</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JOHN]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-3739</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ONE OF MY AGENTS HAD WRITTEN A PFFS PLAN TO A CLIENT LAST YEAR AND THAT PERSON CONTACTED OUR OFFICE AND WANTED TO SEE SOMEONE TO DISSCUSS CHANGING HER PLAN BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT THAT COMPANY WAS GIONG TO DISSCONTINUE HER PLAN.
SHE DID NOT WANT TO WAIT UNTILL 1-1-2010 TO MAKE THE CHANGE.
THE PROBLEM IS THE AGENT THAT WROTE HER HAS BEEN OUT ON SICK LEAVE SINCE MAY, 09 AND IS NOT ABLE TO DO SO.
UNDER CONTACTING EXISTING MEMBERS (CMS GUIDLINES)
THE AGENT IS ALLOWED TO CALL BECAUSE SHE IS EXISTING CLIENT.
BECAUSE I AM THE GENERAL AGENT AM I ALLOWED TO CONTACT THAT PERSON AS THE OWNER OF THAT BUSSINESS?WHAT IF THE WRITING AGENT DIES, AM I ALLOWED TO CONTACT THAT CLIENT?
I WAS TOLD THAT EVEN THOUGH I SPOKE WITH THIS PERSON AND TOLD HER THAT I WOULD STOP AND SEE HER WHEN I WAS IN THE AREA FOR OTHER APPOINTMENTS I WILL BE TERMINATED BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE A SCOPE OF APPOINTMENTDONE BEFORE.
ALSO I COULD NOT CONTACT THIS PERSON BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MY CLIENT AND I DID NOT SIGN HER UP FOR THE PFFS PLAN LAST YEAR.
BY THE WAY SHE IS DUAL ELIGIBLE.
CAN NOT GET ANSWER FROM CMS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ONE OF MY AGENTS HAD WRITTEN A PFFS PLAN TO A CLIENT LAST YEAR AND THAT PERSON CONTACTED OUR OFFICE AND WANTED TO SEE SOMEONE TO DISSCUSS CHANGING HER PLAN BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT THAT COMPANY WAS GIONG TO DISSCONTINUE HER PLAN.<br />
SHE DID NOT WANT TO WAIT UNTILL 1-1-2010 TO MAKE THE CHANGE.<br />
THE PROBLEM IS THE AGENT THAT WROTE HER HAS BEEN OUT ON SICK LEAVE SINCE MAY, 09 AND IS NOT ABLE TO DO SO.<br />
UNDER CONTACTING EXISTING MEMBERS (CMS GUIDLINES)<br />
THE AGENT IS ALLOWED TO CALL BECAUSE SHE IS EXISTING CLIENT.<br />
BECAUSE I AM THE GENERAL AGENT AM I ALLOWED TO CONTACT THAT PERSON AS THE OWNER OF THAT BUSSINESS?WHAT IF THE WRITING AGENT DIES, AM I ALLOWED TO CONTACT THAT CLIENT?<br />
I WAS TOLD THAT EVEN THOUGH I SPOKE WITH THIS PERSON AND TOLD HER THAT I WOULD STOP AND SEE HER WHEN I WAS IN THE AREA FOR OTHER APPOINTMENTS I WILL BE TERMINATED BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE A SCOPE OF APPOINTMENTDONE BEFORE.<br />
ALSO I COULD NOT CONTACT THIS PERSON BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT MY CLIENT AND I DID NOT SIGN HER UP FOR THE PFFS PLAN LAST YEAR.<br />
BY THE WAY SHE IS DUAL ELIGIBLE.<br />
CAN NOT GET ANSWER FROM CMS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-3430</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:37:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-3430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#039;The documentation must be in writing, in the form of a signed agreement by the beneficiary, or a recorded oral agreement.&#039;

Does anyone know of any free web-based recording software that could make it easier to obtain scope of appointment?  Many carriers do not offer this to their agents and it would be way more efficient then they reply cards.

Thanks for this great information.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;The documentation must be in writing, in the form of a signed agreement by the beneficiary, or a recorded oral agreement.&#8217;</p>
<p>Does anyone know of any free web-based recording software that could make it easier to obtain scope of appointment?  Many carriers do not offer this to their agents and it would be way more efficient then they reply cards.</p>
<p>Thanks for this great information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CJR</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-3371</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CJR]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-3371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Craig,  A great Big THANK YOU for all you do for us.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Craig,  A great Big THANK YOU for all you do for us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Vance Absher</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-2193</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J. Vance Absher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 18:07:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-2193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please allow me to help my fellow agents understand the purpose and scope of CMS.

First of all, Medicare Advantage plans are a product of &quot;The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003&quot;. This was enacted by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President. It allows Medicare beneficiaries to choose to have their Medicare benefits administered by a private insurance company rather than a government bureaucracy. The net result of this is a tremendous increase in benefits over Original Medicare, eliminating the need for supplemental insurance, with little to no increase in cost to anyone.

However the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, and won the White House in 2008. In their seemingly unquenchable thirst for power they have sought to socialize the healthcare industry for some time now. (Remember &quot;Hillary Care&quot; in 1992?) While the Obama administration has been recently distracted by unexpected opportunities to extend their tentacles into the automotive, banking, and insurance industries, rest assured their focus on healthcare has not been deterred.

But Medicare Advantage is a major thorn in the side of the socialist movement. Even though Medicare Advantage dramatically helps thousands of seniors, especially the economically disadvantaged, it is essentially the privatization of Medicare, the only &quot;National Healthcare&quot; we&#039;ve ever had. This makes it extremely difficult for the Obama administration to convince even the most gullible that going in the opposite direction is anything short of insane.

Since just shutting down this once wonderful program in its working state would expose the Democrats&#039; agenda and show their willingness to victimize senior citizens (whom they claim to champion), they have chosen the backdoor approach. They&#039;ve thrown a barrage of ridiculous restrictions at agents making it all but illegal to market, and forced the MA companies to lower the fees they pay out in an attempt to get doctors to quit taking it.

Once they have it sufficiently damaged they can then move in and rescue (re-socialize) Medicare, and point to Medicare Advantage as an example of how free market capitalism has destroyed the nation.

So while I share the sentiments of people like Mr Bronstein, and am totally fed up with the incompetence and corruption of CMS, I&#039;m afraid that by abandoning Medicare Advantage, we&#039;re playing right into their hands.

The only thing I know to do is to implore others to write their Congressmen, contact the media, and do everything possible to draw attention to this overlooked segment of the political landscape.

And never ever EVER vote for anything that calls itself a Democrat! I&#039;m not saying the Republicans are much better, but they can&#039;t possibly be any worse!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please allow me to help my fellow agents understand the purpose and scope of CMS.</p>
<p>First of all, Medicare Advantage plans are a product of &#8220;The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003&#8243;. This was enacted by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President. It allows Medicare beneficiaries to choose to have their Medicare benefits administered by a private insurance company rather than a government bureaucracy. The net result of this is a tremendous increase in benefits over Original Medicare, eliminating the need for supplemental insurance, with little to no increase in cost to anyone.</p>
<p>However the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, and won the White House in 2008. In their seemingly unquenchable thirst for power they have sought to socialize the healthcare industry for some time now. (Remember &#8220;Hillary Care&#8221; in 1992?) While the Obama administration has been recently distracted by unexpected opportunities to extend their tentacles into the automotive, banking, and insurance industries, rest assured their focus on healthcare has not been deterred.</p>
<p>But Medicare Advantage is a major thorn in the side of the socialist movement. Even though Medicare Advantage dramatically helps thousands of seniors, especially the economically disadvantaged, it is essentially the privatization of Medicare, the only &#8220;National Healthcare&#8221; we&#8217;ve ever had. This makes it extremely difficult for the Obama administration to convince even the most gullible that going in the opposite direction is anything short of insane.</p>
<p>Since just shutting down this once wonderful program in its working state would expose the Democrats&#8217; agenda and show their willingness to victimize senior citizens (whom they claim to champion), they have chosen the backdoor approach. They&#8217;ve thrown a barrage of ridiculous restrictions at agents making it all but illegal to market, and forced the MA companies to lower the fees they pay out in an attempt to get doctors to quit taking it.</p>
<p>Once they have it sufficiently damaged they can then move in and rescue (re-socialize) Medicare, and point to Medicare Advantage as an example of how free market capitalism has destroyed the nation.</p>
<p>So while I share the sentiments of people like Mr Bronstein, and am totally fed up with the incompetence and corruption of CMS, I&#8217;m afraid that by abandoning Medicare Advantage, we&#8217;re playing right into their hands.</p>
<p>The only thing I know to do is to implore others to write their Congressmen, contact the media, and do everything possible to draw attention to this overlooked segment of the political landscape.</p>
<p>And never ever EVER vote for anything that calls itself a Democrat! I&#8217;m not saying the Republicans are much better, but they can&#8217;t possibly be any worse!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MN Tim</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-2192</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MN Tim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 12:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-2192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have a problem here in MN.  There are new plans called SNBC plans which are a joint venture between MN and CMS.  It is a type of SNP for those who are disabled and on MA.  They are eligble regardless of if they have Medicare.  

A lot of of prospects are homeless.  It is impossible to send them a letter and know that they are going to get it and return it as we do not have a solid address for them.  

We never cold call or do unsolicited calls.  All of our prospects call us first, but we&#039;re not quite sure how to document this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have a problem here in MN.  There are new plans called SNBC plans which are a joint venture between MN and CMS.  It is a type of SNP for those who are disabled and on MA.  They are eligble regardless of if they have Medicare.  </p>
<p>A lot of of prospects are homeless.  It is impossible to send them a letter and know that they are going to get it and return it as we do not have a solid address for them.  </p>
<p>We never cold call or do unsolicited calls.  All of our prospects call us first, but we&#8217;re not quite sure how to document this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Bronstein</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-2183</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick Bronstein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 01:27:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-2183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With all the rules and regulations, commisison caps, retroactively reducing commission and everything else CMS makes us go through, why would anyone keep bothering with MA and PDP plans?

By the way, CMS is about the most dreadful excuse for an agency, even a government agency.  They have admitted to overpaying in the billions.  You can&#039;t get the same answer from 5 people when you call them.  And they want to control (and have) private insurance carriers!

I have already made my decision to actively seek Med Supps in counties where the major PFFS players have said &quot;see ya.&quot;  I would not be surprised to hear that UHC follows Health Net, Coventry, and (that absolutely good for nothing) WellCare in giving up on PFFS.

Can&#039;t wait for October to contact Medicare beneficiaries about Med Supps.  At least CMS hasn&#039;t stopped that yet.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all the rules and regulations, commisison caps, retroactively reducing commission and everything else CMS makes us go through, why would anyone keep bothering with MA and PDP plans?</p>
<p>By the way, CMS is about the most dreadful excuse for an agency, even a government agency.  They have admitted to overpaying in the billions.  You can&#8217;t get the same answer from 5 people when you call them.  And they want to control (and have) private insurance carriers!</p>
<p>I have already made my decision to actively seek Med Supps in counties where the major PFFS players have said &#8220;see ya.&#8221;  I would not be surprised to hear that UHC follows Health Net, Coventry, and (that absolutely good for nothing) WellCare in giving up on PFFS.</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t wait for October to contact Medicare beneficiaries about Med Supps.  At least CMS hasn&#8217;t stopped that yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim O</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-2179</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim O]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 07:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-2179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WOW  We are over 6-months into this season and still confusion.  AHIP Marketing MA &amp; PD Page 10 states there is an exception.  If the Beneficiary request info at the appointment, not on the current/original scope, a new Scope must be completed, to include the new product(s).  However, the new product(s) can be discussed during the current appointment.  There is no 48-hour rule.

I can sent you the page upon request ;-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WOW  We are over 6-months into this season and still confusion.  AHIP Marketing MA &amp; PD Page 10 states there is an exception.  If the Beneficiary request info at the appointment, not on the current/original scope, a new Scope must be completed, to include the new product(s).  However, the new product(s) can be discussed during the current appointment.  There is no 48-hour rule.</p>
<p>I can sent you the page upon request <img src='http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://blog.ritterim.com/2009/05/22/cms-guidance-on-scope-of-appointment-form/comment-page-1/#comment-2176</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Craig]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 20:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ritterim.com/?p=2124#comment-2176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Travis:

A call in would not require a Scope of Appointment form.  I&#039;d note it on the enrollment form to CYA.

Craig]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Travis:</p>
<p>A call in would not require a Scope of Appointment form.  I&#8217;d note it on the enrollment form to CYA.</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

