MUMBAI: India will be a $2-trillion economy in the next five years as its GDP growth is likely to average at 12 per cent in nominal terms powered by a huge consumption demand, Enam Securities has said.

"India's GDP is likely to grow at (an) average 12 per cent in nominal terms. Hence, India will be a $2-trillion economy by 2014-15," Enam Securities Head-Research, Nandan Chakraborty, and economist Sachchidanand Shukla said in a report titled 'India Strategy' released today.

This growth will be led by the huge consumption demand in sectors like FMCG, power, auto (small car hub), IT and pharma, it added.

The brokerage firm said insurance companies, financial services and equity markets will flourish as the country's annual savings pool grows to $700 billion from $400 billion at present.

"More than half of this ($700 billion) could flow into financial savings. With favourable demographics and average seven per cent real growth, India can sustain more than 30 per cent savings rate akin to the Asian tigers, or China and Japan. This will transform the domestic financial services space," Enam said.

Life insurance penetration in India, which is already a USD one-trillion economy, is estimated to reach a level of 4.4 per cent over the next two years as insurance companies focus on expanding into rural India, the report said.

Source : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Indicators/India-to-be-2-trillion-economy-by-2014-15-Enam/articleshow/5236795.cms

WASHINGTON — With a huge number of residents who buy health care on their own and relatively few companies selling them coverage, California is just the kind of market in need of a new government-run insurance plan, supporters of the controversial proposal dominating much of the health reform debate say.

But some health care experts in California say it's far from certain that the public option, if it's even adopted, would become the low-cost, benefit-rich alternative to the private market that its proponents have touted. Nor, analysts say, is it likely the mortal threat to the insurance industry that opponents claim.

"In general, I like the public option, but I'm highly skeptical that it's going to do what needs to be done" — namely, to lower health care costs and provide better care, said Lucien Wulsin, an attorney specializing in health care law and director of the Santa Monica-based Insure the Uninsured Project. "In some ways it's being oversold by the people who love it and oversold by the people who hate it."

In the best case, health care analysts say, a new public insurer could inject a dose of competition in the insurance market and serve as a useful benchmark for quality and cost, especially in markets dominated by one or two private insurance companies. Although California boasts more competition than many other states, with five major firms doing business in the state and several other smaller players, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente still control nearly three-fifths of the state's health insurance market, according to a report this year by the American Medical Association.

But the number of insurers is just one part of the equation, said former state insurance commissioner and newly elected Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Creek. A government insurer also could help keep accountable private insurance firms that engage in bad behavior, he said, such as excessively denying claims for medical treatment.

"A public option would provide an automatic alternative to that kind of despicable behavior," Garamendi said. "People could walk."

Although Democrats continue to press for a government-run plan, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, it remains to be seen whether one will emerge from the grind of legislative negotiations in the coming weeks — let alone what form it takes. Both the reform bill passed by the House last weekend and a proposal being drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., include different versions of one, but it's unclear whether either would garner enough support among conservative Democratic senators to be included in final legislation.

If a public option does survive, it's likely to be in a weakened form.

Bowing to political constraints, legislative leaders already have abandoned some elements of a public option that could do the most to keep premiums down. Under the House bill, the government plan would have to negotiate with doctors and hospitals over payment rates — just as private insurers do — instead of simply tying them to what Medicare pays providers. And if medical providers deem the payments offered too low, they can refuse to do business with the public plan, thus limiting the network of doctors and hospitals available to its enrollees.

That lack of clout going in raises questions about whether a government plan would be able to negotiate a better deal, in the form of lower premiums, for consumers.

"It's just not clear that a public option would bring a whole lot of leverage to bargain for lower prices," said Marian Mulkey, a senior program officer for the California Healthcare Foundation.

Supporters say a public plan could pass on savings from lower overhead costs and money that otherwise would go toward profits. Overhead and profits span a wide range, from 5 percent to 10 percent of premiums for large companies that are self-insured, to 25 percent to 27 percent for companies in the small group market, to 40 percent or more for individual plans, said Jacob Hacker, a political science professor at Yale and supporter of the public option.

Any public plan is likely to be limited. Only about 30 million Americans — individuals buying insurance on their own and employees of small businesses that don't offer coverage — would be eligible to enroll in the public option envisioned by the House bill. Within that pool, about one in five, or 6 million, would choose the new government plan, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated recently. That would translate to fewer than 1 million Californians.

"The impact in California would likely be quite modest" if the House-approved public option was created, said Patrick Johnston, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans and a former state lawmaker for two decades. The concern, he said, is that over time the government plan would "morph into a Medicare for all" that increases the federal deficit and undermines the private insurance market.

Among California's largest insurers, Anthem Blue Cross' parent company, WellPoint, and United Healthcare oppose the public option; Kaiser Permanente and Blue Shield, which both operate as nonprofits, have not taken a position.

Others say that with a huge pool of potential customers in California — about 6.8 million residents are uninsured, and another 2.7 million people currently buy insurance on their own and would be eligible to sign up for a public plan — the public option could emerge as a stronger player in California than the CBO suggests.

One major reason the CBO projected that a public option wouldn't be popular is because premiums actually could be higher than those offered by private sector insurers. That's because it would attract a less healthy group of customers drawn to the security of government-backed insurance, the report said, so overall health care costs would be higher.

Wulsin, the health care attorney, said that perhaps the biggest benefit of a public option would be to shift attention back to some of the issues getting short shrift in the current debate. For example, a government-run plan could experiment with new payment models, reimbursing doctors and hospitals for the health care outcomes they achieve, rather than the number of tests or procedures they perform.

"If it's going to succeed," Wulsin said, "it's going to have to be because it does something new and innovative."

Source : http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13811020

In a boost to the Obama administration's efforts to frame health care reform as an economic boon, a group of 20 health economists sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday touting the fiscal results of passing reform legislation.

The group lists four specific elements of reform as crucial to controlling costs and righting the fiscal trajectory of the health care system's overhaul. They include making legislation deficit neutral (which describes both the House and Senate version of reform), including an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans (which is part of the Senate's version of reform, but not the House's version), creating an independent Medicare commission (also in the Senate bill), and general changes to the delivery system.

There is, notably, no mention of a public option for insurance coverage, which is estimated by other analysts as a major price saver in the health care system. But the note from the group of economist could give a needed boost to those conservative Democrats who are already skittish about the costs and size of congressional reform efforts.

As the economists write: "we believe that it is important to enact health reform, and it is essential that health reform include these four features that will lower health care costs and help reduce deficits over the long term. Reform legislation that embodies these four elements can go a long way toward delivering better health care, and better value, to Americans."

Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/economists-tout-health-ca_n_361469.html

The district consumer dispute redressal forum has directed Reliance General Insurance and Medi Assist India Private Limited to pay a compensation of Rs 1,500 for providing inadequate insurance services to a city resident.

According to complaint, Sushil Grover got himself insured from the company on August 16, 2007 for a period of one year.

As per the policy, every member of his family was insured for Rs 1,00,000. The policy provided insurance for self plus spouse plus two unmarried dependent children.

On the last day of the expiry of the policy, the family met with an accident at Mussoorie and as a result the wife of the beneficary received a closed fracture at the right wrist and serious jerks on back bone.

Subsequently, she was was hospitalised in the Landour Community Hospital, Mussoorie, where she was administered a plaster. She was discharged on the same evening.

Source : http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Reliance-Insurance-fined-Rs-1-500-for-deficiency-in-services/543139/