What if Insurers Didn’t Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting? By ANN CARRNS

JANUARY 10, 2012, 11:00 AM

What if Insurers Didn’t Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting? By ANN CARRNS

Associated PressA 2010 texting-related crash in Missouri.

Last month, the National Transportation Safety Board called for a nationwide ban on the use of cellphones and other “portable electronic devices” while driving.

“It is time for all of us to stand up for safety by turning off electronic devices when driving,” the board’s chairman, Deborah A.P. Hersman, said in a statement.

It’s uncertain whether the board’s call will be heeded, given the public’s addiction to instant electronic communication, any time and anywhere. But the proposal has generated discussion. One provocative idea was floated by a man from Boulder, Colo. He suggested, in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal, that insurance companies could curtail distracted driving if they simply refused to pay claims for accidents caused by texting. (Many states specifically ban texting while driving, but enforcement varies.)

That sounded like an intriguing proposal to us here at Bucks — one that could be applied to all sorts of bad driving behavior, including drunken driving.

The idea, though, seems to be a nonstarter. Insurance companies, and even a consumer advocate, make the point that coverage for injuries to yourself or others as a result of an accident — even one caused by careless or just plain stupid behavior — is one of the main reasons to buy insurance in the first place.

“An accident is an accident,” says Mark Romano, an insurance specialist with the Consumer Federation of America. “And if you’re reckless enough to do things you shouldn’t be doing, then your insurance is there to cover you.”

Dick Luedke, a spokesman for State Farm, said in an e-mail that the insurer typically pays for accidents, even if the driver is intoxicated. “Generally speaking, we fulfill our promise even when the person to whom we make the promise violates the law, and we fulfill our promise to the person who texts while driving, whether or not that person is violating the law.”

“That’s the point of insurance,” Mr. Luedke said, in a follow-up phone call. He also noted that while the spotlight currently is on texting and cellphone use, there are all sorts of other ways drivers can become distracted, whether by disciplining children in the back seat, eating lunch or even fiddling with the radio: “Where do you draw the line?”

There’s also the problem of innocent parties who are injured. Say you are texting and not paying attention, and you strike a pedestrian, who incurs big medical bills. Typically, your insurance would pay for the victim’s care, since you caused the accident. Would it be fair to tell the victim, “Sorry, that’s not covered? The driver was texting so we can’t cover you?” said Loretta Worters, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, in an e-mail. “We have an obligation to pay that claim, to protect that innocent bystander, even if you were stupid.”

Of course, if drivers repeatedly get in accidents, whether due to drunken driving or texting or another reason, the insurer is likely to jack up their premiums, or cancel their coverage.

Ms. Worters noted that the industry is taking steps to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving.

What do you think? Is there an argument to be made for not covering accidents caused by texting or other bad driving behavior?

July 7, 2011, 12:01 am

How Health Insurance Affects Health

By DAVID LEONHARDT

In the nearly year and a half since Congress passed the health care overhaul, one of the main purposes of the bill — to provide health insurance to people who lack it — has often been lost in the debate. Instead, supporters and opponents of the bill have argued over whether the bill is constitutional, and they’ve argued over whether the bill will cut medical costs more or less than the Congressional Budget Office projects.
Those are obviously important issues. But so is the fact that, unlike any other rich country in the world, the United States has tens of millions of people who do not have health insurance and therefore go without some forms of medical care.
A new study being released today, by some of the country’s top health economists, aims to estimate the effects of not having health insurance — and the effects are large.
The researchers used a lottery that the state of Oregon conducted in 2008 to determine who would become eligible to apply for a limited number of Medicaid slots. The researchers compared the health outcomes of those who won the lottery (many of whom then received insurance) and those who did not (who were more likely to remain uninsured).
The researchers have followed the subjects for only a year so far, so the paper has some clear limitations. But it nonetheless suggests that having health insurance substantially improves health. Expanding insurance does not save society money — as some advocates of preventive medicine have claimed — but it does appear to make people mentally and physically healthier.

The authors point out that the insurance in question — Medicaid — is the same one that many uninsured people will receive as part of the health care law. For that reason, among others, the paper suggests that the law is likely to improve the health and well-being of many of the uninsured.
Katherine Baicker — one of the authors and a Harvard economist who served in President George W. Bush’s administration — wrote the following to me, via e-mail:

There has been a great deal of uncertainty about how much of a difference Medicaid makes to enrollees. Some argued that Medicaid isn’t ‘good’ insurance coverage and that a Medicaid card doesn’t get enrollees much access to care. Others argued that the uninsured already have access to care through the emergency room, clinics, or charity care.
Our study shows that gaining access to Medicaid matters on a number of different dimensions, including increased access to and use of health care.

The authors also point out that the benefits of health insurance aren’t only medical. They’re financial too, as is the case with other forms of insurance. Here’s another author, Amy Finkelstein (an M.I.T. economist who has written for The Wall Street Journal opinion pages and whom I’ve written about), also via e-mail:

Health insurance isn’t just about access to health care – it’s also about protection from financial ruin. This point isn’t often discussed in the debate about health insurance expansions, but the reduction in financial strain that we found was substantial. This is important for enrollees, but it is also important for the providers who see fewer of their bills go unpaid.

Besides Ms. Baicker and Ms. Finkelstein, the paper’s authors include Jonathan Gruber (an M.I.T. economist, who has advised the Obama administration) and Joseph Newhouse (a Harvard economist who designed and ran the famous RAND Health Insurance Experiment in the 1970s and ’80s). The other authors are Sarah Taubman, Bill Wright, Mira Bernstein, Heidi Allen and members of the Oregon Health Study Group.
Excerpts from the study, which my colleague Gina Kolata writes about today, follow:

About one year after enrollment, we find that those selected by the lottery have substantial and statistically significantly higher health care utilization, lower out-of-pocket medical expenditures and medical debt, and better self-reported health than the control group that was not given the opportunity to apply for Medicaid.
The increase in hospital admissions appears to be disproportionately concentrated in the approximately 35 percent of admissions that do not originate in the emergency room, suggesting that these admissions may be more price sensitive.
[W]e find that insurance is associated with improvements across the board in our measures of self-reported physical and mental health, averaging two-tenths of a standard deviation improvement. These results appear to reflect improvements in mental health and also at least partly a general sense of improved well being; they may also reflect improvements in objective, physical health, but this is more difficult to determine with the data we now have available.
[I]nsurance is also associated with an increase in compliance with recommended preventive care. We look at four different measures of preventive care: blood cholesterol checks, blood tests for diabetes, mammograms, and pap tests. …[T]he results indicate … a 20 percent increase in the probability of ever having one’s blood cholesterol checked, a 15 percent increase in the probability of ever having one’s blood tested for high blood sugar or diabetes, a 60 percent increase in the probability of having a mammogram within the last year (for women 40 and over), and a 45 percent change in the probability of having a pap test within the last year (for women).
[Our] calculation suggests that insurance is associated with a $778 (standard error = $371) increase in annual spending, or about a 25 percent increase relative to the implied control mean annual spending.

July 7, 2011

First Study of Its Kind Shows Benefits of Providing Medical Insurance to Poor By GINA KOLATA

When poor people are given medical insurance, they not only find regular doctors and see doctors more often but they also feel better, are less depressed and are better able to maintain financial stability, according to a new, large-scale study that provides the first rigorously controlled assessment of the impact of Medicaid.
While the findings may seem obvious, health economists and policy makers have long questioned whether it would make any difference to provide health insurance to poor people.
It has become part of the debate on Medicaid, at a time when states are cutting back on this insurance program for the poor. In fact, the only reason the study could be done was that Oregon was running out of money and had to choose some people to get insurance and exclude others, providing groups for comparison.
Some said that of course it would help to insure the uninsured. Others said maybe not. There was already a safety net: emergency rooms, charity care, free clinics and the option to go to a doctor and simply not pay the bill. And in any case, the argument goes, if Medicaid coverage is expanded, people will still have trouble seeing a doctor because so few accept that insurance.
Until now, the arguments were pretty much irresolvable. Researchers compared people who happened to have insurance with those who did not have it. But those who do not have insurance tend to be different in many ways from people who have it. They tend to be less educated and to have worse health habits and lower incomes, said Dr. Alan M. Garber, an internist and health economist at Stanford. No matter how carefully researchers try to correct for the differences “they cannot be completely successful,” Dr. Garber said. “There is always some doubt.”
The new study, published Thursday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, avoided that problem. Its design is like that used to test new drugs. People were randomly selected to have Medicaid or not, and researchers then asked if the insurance made any difference.
Health economists and other researchers said the study was historic and would be cited for years to come, shaping health care debates.
“It’s obviously a really important paper,” said James Smith, an economist at the RAND Corporation. “It is going to be a classic.”
Richard M. Suzman, director of the behavioral and social research program at the National Institute on Aging, a major source of financing for the research, said it was “one of the most important studies that our division has funded since I’ve been at the N.I.A.,” a period of more than a quarter-century.
In its first year of data collection, the study found a long list of differences between the insured and uninsured, adding up to an extra 25 percent in medical expenditures for the insured.
Those with Medicaid were 35 percent more likely to go to a clinic or see a doctor, 15 percent more likely to use prescription drugs and 30 percent more likely to be admitted to a hospital. Researchers were unable to detect a change in emergency room use.
Women with insurance were 60 percent more likely to have mammograms, and those with insurance were 20 percent more likely to have their cholesterol checked. They were 70 percent more likely to have a particular clinic or office for medical care and 55 percent more likely to have a doctor whom they usually saw.
The insured also felt better: the likelihood that they said their health was good or excellent increased by 25 percent, and they were 40 percent less likely to say that their health had worsened in the past year than those without insurance.
The study is now in its next phase, an assessment of the health effects of having insurance. The researchers interviewed 12,000 people — 6,000 who received Medicaid and 6,000 who did not — and measured things like blood pressure, cholesterol and weight.
The study became possible because of an unusual situation in Oregon. In 2008, the state wanted to expand its Medicaid program to include more uninsured people but could afford to add only 10,000 to its rolls. Yet nearly 90,000 applied. Oregon decided to select the 10,000 by lottery.
Economists were electrified. Here was their chance to compare those who got insurance with those who were randomly assigned to go without it. No one had ever done anything like that before, in part because it would be considered unethical to devise a study that would explicitly deny some people coverage while giving it to others.
But this situation was perfect for assessing the impact of Medicaid, said Katherine Baicker, professor of health economics at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Baicker and Amy Finkelstein, professor of economics at M.I.T., are the principal investigators for the study.
“Amy and I stumbled across the lottery in Oregon and thought, ‘This is an unbelievable opportunity to actually find out once and for all what expanding public health insurance does,’ ” Dr. Baicker said.
They had just a short window of time. Within two years, Oregon found the money to offer Medicaid to the nearly 80,000 who had been turned down in the lottery.
As an economist, Dr. Finkelstein was interested, among other things, in whether Medicaid did what all insurance — homeowner’s, auto, health — is supposed to do: shield people from financial catastrophe. Almost no one had even tried to investigate that question, she said.
“It is shocking that it is not even in the discourse,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
The study found that those with insurance were 25 percent less likely to have an unpaid bill sent to a collection agency and were 40 percent less likely to borrow money or fail to pay other bills because they had to pay medical bills.
Dr. Finkelstein said she had thought that the people were so poor to begin with that they just did not spend very much out of pocket on medical care when they did not have insurance. “Yet look at the results,” she said.
Dr. Baicker interviewed people for Part 2 of the study and was impressed by what she heard.
“Being uninsured is incredibly stressful from a financial perspective, a psychological perspective, a physical perspective,” she said. “It is a huge relief to people not to have to worry about it day in and day out.”

Health Care’s Uneven Road to a New Era By DAVID LEONHARDT

October 5, 2010
Health Care’s Uneven Road to a New Era By DAVID LEONHARDT

Consider what it would be like to have a health insurance plan that capped annual benefits at $2,000. For any medical care costing more than that, you would have to pay out of pocket.

Examples of care that costs more than $2,000 — and often a lot more — include virtually any cancer treatment, any heart surgery, a year’s worth of diabetes treatment and care for many broken bones. Even a single M.R.I. exam can cost more than $2,000. A typical hospital stay runs thousands of dollars more.

So does this insurance plan sound like part of the solution for the country’s health care system — or part of the problem?

A $2,000 plan happens to be one of the main plans that McDonald’s offers its employees. It became big news last week, when The Wall Street Journal reported that the company was worried the plan would run afoul of a provision in the new health care law. In response to the provision, McDonald’s threatened to drop the coverage altogether, until the Obama administration signaled it would grant some exemptions.

This episode was only the latest disruption that the health law seems to be causing. Also last week, the Principal Financial Group said it was getting out of the health insurance business, while other insurers have said they might stop offering certain types of coverage. With each new disruption come loud claims — some from insurance executives — that the health overhaul is damaging American health care.

On the surface, these claims can sound credible. But when you dig a little deeper, you often discover the same lesson that the McDonald’s case provides: the real problem was the status quo.

American families spend almost twice as much on health care — through premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses — as families in any other country. In exchange, we receive top-notch specialty care in many areas. Yet on the whole, we do not get much better care than countries that spend far less.

We don’t live as long as people in Canada, Japan, most of Western Europe or even relatively poor Jordan. Misdiagnosis is common. Medical errors occur more often than in some other countries. Unique to the developed world, millions of people have no health insurance, and millions more, like many fast-food workers, are underinsured.

In choosing their health reform plan, President Obama and the Democrats eschewed radical changes, for better or worse, and instead tried to minimize the disruptions to the current system. Sometimes, Mr. Obama went so far as to suggest there would be no disruptions, saying that people could keep their current plan if they liked it. But that’s not quite right. It is not possible to change a system as huge, and as hugely flawed, as ours without some disruptions.

•

McDonald’s offers its hourly workers two different health care plans, which are known as “mini-med” plans. In one, workers can pay about $730 a year for benefits of up to $2,000. In the other, they can pay about $1,660 a year for benefits of up to $10,000, The Journal reported.

In a memo to federal regulators, McDonald’s executives argued that their version of health insurance “positively impacts” the almost 30,000 workers who are covered. And that’s true. A plan with a $2,000 or $10,000 cap can cover some modest health problems and is better than being uninsured.

But should the litmus test for American health care really be better than nothing?

Mini-med plans force people to drain their savings accounts for dozens of common medical problems. They also force hospitals to let some bills go unpaid, which drives up costs for everyone else.

Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has previously criticized AARP for marketing similarly limited plans to its members. “It’s not better than nothing,” Mr. Grassley argued, “to encourage people to buy something described as ‘health security’ when there’s no basic protection against high medical costs.”

Dr. Aaron Carroll, an Indiana University pediatrics professor who studies health policy, says of mini-med plans: “They’re great if you’re healthy, because you feel like you’re covered. But if you ever need them, they’re so skimpy, they provide very little.” Gary Claxton of the Kaiser Family Foundation adds, “They really just shouldn’t be considered health insurance.”

The plans’ skimpiness is the main reason they ran into legal jeopardy. Under the new law, most plans must spend at least 85 percent of their revenue on medical care, rather than administrative overhead. The McDonald’s plans aren’t generous enough to clear the hurdle.

At the same time, it’s probably unrealistic to expect McDonald’s to give workers decent health insurance. Many of those workers make less than $20,000 a year. A typical family insurance plan would raise their total compensation by more than half, destroying the McDonald’s business model.

The workers, for their part, cannot afford to buy insurance in the so-called individual market. Plans are even more expensive in that market, because it is dominated by people who desperately need insurance — which is to say, sick people.

This is where health reform comes in. It tried to solve the problem by creating what policy experts call a three-legged stool.

First, people will be required to buy insurance, to spread costs among the sick and the healthy. Second, insurers will be prohibited from cherry-picking only the healthiest customers, again to spread costs. Finally, the government will give subsidies to people, like McDonald’s workers, who can’t afford insurance on their own.

Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland all use a system along these lines to cover everyone, largely through the private sector, for less money per person than this country spends.

The recent disruptions in our health insurance market are partly a result of the fact that the stool’s three legs were not built on the same timetable. Some of the insurance regulations, like the one on overhead costs, are starting to take effect. But the new markets for health insurance, known as exchanges, won’t be up and running until 2014. This timetable has its problems, and the Obama administration will probably need to grant some more temporary exemptions.

In 2014, however, the choice for McDonald’s workers will no longer be between a bad policy and no policy. Through the exchanges, they will be able to buy a real health insurance plan — one that covers cancer, heart attacks, surgeries, M.R.I.’s and hospital stays. Dr. Carroll notes that many families will end up paying less than they are now paying out of pocket and will get more access to care, too.

For insurance companies, these changes won’t be quite so positive. They will no longer be able to sell plans that devote 30 percent of revenue to salaries for their workers. They will not be allowed to compete over which company can come up with the most ingenious ways to say no to the sick. Their benefits and prices will become more public, thanks to the exchanges.

The health care overhaul that passed Congress is far from ideal, as I have written many times in this space. But it does represent progress.

The fact that it is beginning to disrupt the status quo — that some insurance policies will eventually be eliminated and some inefficient insurers will have to leave the market altogether — is all the proof we need.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

What we can learn from Singapore's health-care model By Matt Miller

What we can learn from Singapore's health-care model By Matt Miller
Wednesday, March 3, 2010; 10:45 AM







We interrupt Washington's feud over the president's "way forward" for a brief word on a path not taken, courtesy of the only rich nation that boasts universal coverage with health outcomes better than ours while spending one-fifth as much per person on health care. Introducing (drum roll please): Singapore.



Yes, it's an island city-state of just 5 million people. Yes, it's more or less a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, until recently, bringing chewing gum into Singapore could land you in jail. But Singapore, a poor country a few decades ago, now boasts a higher per capita income (when adjusted for local purchasing power) than the United States. And here's the astonishing fact: Singapore spends less than 4 percent of its GDP on health care. We spend 17 percent (and Singapore's somewhat younger population doesn't begin to explain the difference). Matching Singapore's performance in our $15 trillion economy would free up $2 trillion a year for other public and private purposes.



Do I have I your attention?



Today we can't find cash to recruit a new generation of great teachers, rebuild our roads and bridges, pay down the national debt, or invest in better airports, high-speed rail, a clean energy revolution or any of a hundred other things sensible patriots know we should do to renew the country. We can't do these things in large part because the Medical Industrial Complex vacuums up every spare dollar in sight. It's only slightly melodramatic to assert that if we could run our health-care system as efficiently as Singapore's, we could solve most of our other problems.



So how does Singapore do it?



In health circles it's always conservatives who bring up Singapore, because of the primacy it places on personal responsibility. According to Phua Kai Hong of the National University of Singapore, roughly one-third of health spending in Singapore is paid directly by individuals (who typically buy catastrophic coverage as well); in the United States, by contrast, nearly 90 percent is picked up by third-party insurers, employers and governments. Singaporeans make these payments out of earnings as well as from health savings accounts. The system is chock-full of incentives for thrift. If you want a private hospital room, for example, you pay through the nose; most people choose less expensive wards.



Conservatives are right: Singaporeans have the kind of "skin in the game" that promotes prudence.



But that's only half the story. There's also a massive public role. For starters, adequate savings for retirement and health expenses are mandated by government (employees must sock away 20 percent of earnings each year, to which employers add 13 percent). Public hospitals provide 80 percent of the acute care, setting affordable pricing benchmarks with which private providers compete. Supply-side rules that favor training new family doctors over pricey specialists are more extensive than similar notions Hillary Clinton pushed in the '90s. And in Singapore, if a child is obese, they don't get Rose Garden exhortations from the first lady. They get no lunch and mandatory exercise periods during school.



There's more (including an ample safety net for the poor), but you get the gist: Singapore achieves world-class results thanks to a bold, unconventional synthesis of liberal and conservative approaches. It's further to the left and further to the right than what President Obama or his foes now seek. The island's real ideology is pragmatic problem-solving. It works thanks to cultural traditions that let this eclectic blend flourish. The system is nurtured by talented, highly paid officials who have the luxury of governing for the long-term without being buffeted much by politics.



We obviously can't transplant Singapore's approach wholesale to the United States. But the reason we can't emulate even some of Singapore's success has to do with that iron law of health-care politics: Every dollar of health-care "waste" is somebody's dollar of income. As a stable advanced democracy, we're so overrun by groups with stakes in today's waste that real efficiency gains are perennially blocked.



Any hope for something better starts with tallying the price of today's paralysis. Think about that $2 trillion the next time you see states, citing budget woes, shut the door to college on tens of thousands of poor American students. Or when the next firm moves jobs overseas because health costs here are soaring. Or when the next bridge collapses. Thanks, Medical Industrial Complex!



We return now to our regularly scheduled political battle, which (no matter the outcome, according to some projections) will leave health costs headed to more than 20 percent of GDP by 2019.



Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio's "Left, Right & Center," writes a weekly column for The Post. He can be reached at mattino2@gmail.com.

America’s healthcare should no longer be tied to jobs By Matt Miller

America’s healthcare should no longer be tied to jobs By Matt Miller

Published: July 30 2009 22:32 | Last updated: July 30 2009 22:32

The bipartisan “gang of six” in the Senate wants to fine employers whose workers choose Medicaid, the US public healthcare system, rather than more costly insurance from their company. The House wants to impose an 8 per cent payroll tax on all but the tiniest companies that do not offer healthcare. These damaging proposals show that both political parties remain deeply confused about the roles of government and corporations in a modern economy. Their premise – that companies have a duty to provide health benefits – has such perverse consequences that it may doom reform efforts altogether.

America’s unique employer-based healthcare system may have made sense 50 years ago, when healthcare was cheap and business faced little global competition. But today’s circumstances are radically different. Soaring health costs strangle business and absorb cash that could otherwise go to wages. The link between healthcare and employment explains why millions of Americans have lost coverage during this recession. Budding entrepreneurs with ill spouses or children stay in jobs they loathe for fear of losing the insurance they need. Keeping employers at the core of the welfare state is bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for families.

With flaws like these you would think a prime goal of health reform would be to give everyone access to group health coverage outside the employer setting. But you would be wrong. Amazingly, this goal was taken off the table at the start. President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress feared that moving beyond the employer-based system would leave them assailed as “socialists”. Business feared being slammed by unions for “shirking responsibilities”. Unions feared that if health benefits were no longer shaped through collective bargaining, their standing would fall further. Everyone in Washington feared too much “change”.

But ignoring the key structural flaw in US healthcare is precisely what has brought the question of how to finance expanded coverage to its current impasse. Having decided not to move beyond employer-based care, politicians now view the shift of Americans to any plan that requires public subsidy as a negative, because it adds to the cost of reform.

The most depressing examples of this thinking are the proposed rules to keep people in job-based care. Strict limits, for example, would govern who could use new insurance “exchanges” that would give access to competing plans, including a public insurance option. Those who already have coverage from an employer would be barred from seeking coverage there. But this is exactly the opposite of what sound policy should be doing. Worse, this lockdown obviously does not lower national health costs at all – it just keeps the amount on the public ledger below some threshold deemed politically acceptable.

The better solution would be a “grand bargain”, through which business shifts health costs off its payrolls and on to government, in exchange for business supporting the broader revenue needed for government to accommodate this shift. Contrary to conservative claims, it is perfectly possible to do so in market-friendly ways. As health systems in Switzerland and Holland show, the US could have universal coverage without taking the road of single-payer care.

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has been the lonely voice arguing that America must move beyond job-based healthcare to boost business competitiveness while assuring family health security. Mr Wyden mustered a small bipartisan coalition around such a plan, but the weight of dead ideas in Washington has stifled the proposal.

In the long term there is reason for hope. As long as some form of insurance exchange is included in any final bill, some non-poor, non-elderly Americans will for the first time have a way to buy group coverage outside employment. This infrastructure can expand and become a safe way to move more people out of job-based coverage over time. Mr Wyden hopes to accelerate that process; he has proposed that workers be able to take the money employers spend on their benefits and use it to buy coverage at the exchanges if they prefer. If these innovations are launched in even modest form this year, America will be on a path to consigning employer-based coverage to the dustbin of history, where it now belongs.

The writer, a management consultant, is the author of The Tyranny of Dead Ideas

Storm season keeps roofers busy in Dallas-Fort Worth By ERIN COVERT

Storm season keeps roofers busy in Dallas-Fort Worth By ERIN COVERT

01:01 PM CDT on Friday, June 19, 2009

/ Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
home@dallasnews.com

The arrival of severe weather season in North Texas also means it's the season for roof repairs and replacement.

Whether choosing a roof for a new house or replacing an old one, there are new high-tech, weather-resistant products to consider; don't assume your options are limited to replacing a roof with one of similar materials. At the same time, it's as difficult as ever to choose a good installer. Knowing more about selecting materials and contractors can help a homeowner achieve a more satisfactory outcome.

Manufacturers rate roofing materials in several ways. Wind, impact and fire resistance; maximum expected life; and classifications that aggregate those factors are some of the ways a shingle is rated.

"My advice to a homeowner is to ask for the heaviest shingle with the maximum impact-resistance rating that has a 40- to 50-year warranty," says Leo Wadley, past president of the Roofing Contractors Association of Texas and owner of Fort Worth-based Leo Wadley Roofing.

Wadley says shingle impact resistance is rated on a scale from I to IV, with IV being most durable to impact, such as hailstones. Roofing materials also will typically have two wind-speed classifications, depending on the number of nails used to install each piece. Maximum wind speed ratings on shingles range from 60 miles per hour to about 150 miles per hour.

Larry Tanner, research associate at the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at Texas Tech University, says homeowners in North Texas should install roofs specified for maximum wind speeds of 90 miles per hour or higher.

Factors that affect shingle durability in severe weather, according to Tanner, include thickness, weight, chemical composition and adhesives used to hold shingles together. Proper installation also is critical. "Poor installation is the prime reason for roof failures," Tanner says.

Common errors include using too few nails and applying nails in the wrong place on a shingle. There's also the issue of making sure the nails actually attach to the building structure.

"I've been inside attics where only 10 percent of the nails were properly attached to the roof structure," Tanner says, adding that with pneumatic nail guns it's less noticeable to the installer when the nail doesn't hit solid wood beneath.

Avoiding such problems requires hiring a reputable, qualified contractor. It's a task that can be difficult, especially here.

"Texas is one of only 12 states that does not require a roofing license," Wadley says, "and it's the only Gulf Coast state that doesn't. It's an absolute minefield out there."

Because of that lack of regulation, the onus falls on the homeowner to vet the contractor. It also means the homeowner is liable for problems that may arise out of the job. That includes when a contractor fails to pay the supplier for materials used to roof a house, says Vera Bryant, executive director of the Roofing Contractors Association of Texas.

"It's not a requirement that roofers carry a general liability insurance policy," Bryant says. "A homeowner's only recourse when something goes wrong is small claims court."

In addition to choosing a contractor who provides proof of liability insurance, Tice Enterprises roofing specialist Joe Henderson says it's important to check that contractors are members of a professional association that requires education and adherence to business practice standards.

"I would say less than 15 percent of contractors stay up to date on continuing education," Henderson says.

Erin Covert is a Dallas freelance writer.

Questions to ask

When you are interviewing a potential roofing contractor, inquire about:

•Certifications and professional association memberships

•Years of experience doing roofing jobs, specifically in North Texas

•Insurance policies. What's the coverage limit in terms of money? What aspects of the job, exactly, are insured against damage or claims?

•Credit references and local suppliers they use, to check for good standing

•Certifications from the manufacturer to install particular roofing products

More advice for choosing a contractor is available on the North Texas Roofing Contractors Association's Web site at www.NTRCA.com.
Comparing roofing materials

Roofing material Pros Cons Weather Resistance Approximate cost, including installation, to re-roof 2,000 square feet
Three-tab composition asphalt shingle •Least expensive roofing product

•High fire resistance
•Lack of aesthetic appeal

•Thinnest roof protection
•Least protection available •$4,500
Laminated composition asphalt shingle •Highly affordable, best durability value for cost

•Thicker than 3-tab material

•More aesthetically appealing than 3-tab material

•High fire resistance
•Aesthetically less attractive than premium roofing materials •From moderate to very high, depending on specific make •$5,250 and up
Premium synthetic polymer shingles

•Lightweight nature makes for easy installation compared with stone or concrete

•Realistically mimics slate and wood shingles

•Typically offer at least 50-year or lifetime warranty

•Typically offer high impact and fire resistance
•Very expensive •Very high •$16,000 and up
Concrete shingles

•Highly durable material, some with maximum impact resistance ratings

•Aesthetically mimics slate

•Popular choice for high-end, new residential construction

•Low cost compared to natural products


•Extreme weight complicates installation

•Typically only used on new construction because weight requires substantial structural support


•Very high
•$8,000, but only applies to new construction

Stone-coated steel


•Mimics the look of terra cotta or other natural tile

•Lightweight

•Can sometimes be installed over existing roofing materials


•Shingles can dent during a hailstorm, and warranties typically do not cover repair or replacement for dents


•Very high durability, with typical warranties extending to 50 years


•$8,000
Standing-seam sheet metal

•Durable material

•Unique aesthetic appeal


•As with stone-coated metal, shingles may dent during a hailstorm, damage that warranties do not typically cover


•Very high durability


$12,000
Natural slate

•Aesthetic appeal of a natural, historic architectural material

•Durable in high winds


•Difficult to install

•Heavy material requires solid infrastructure


•High durability but susceptible to impact problems due to hail


•$16,000 and up
Wood shake or shingle

•Aesthetic appeal

Natural product

•Historically accurate on homes of certain style and age


•Typically not allowed in most areas because of susceptibility to fire; if allowed, municipalities require fire-retardant treatment

•Expensive both to buy the roof and to insure it


•Low durability


•$12,000 and up
Print | RSS | | Yahoo! Buzz | Send a news tip

Create A Screen Name

Screen names can only consist of letters and numbers.
Your screen name will appear to everyone.
NOTE: You cannot change, delete,
or edit your screen name once you hit "Save".

Check to see if this screenname exists Cancel Screen Name Form
Leave Comment
Guidelines: We welcome your thoughts, but for the sake of all readers, please refrain from the use of obscenities, personal attacks or racial slurs. All comments are subject to our terms of service and may be removed. Repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges.

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register Now!

You are logged in as c2hubbard | Log Out

You are logged in, but do not have a "screen" name. Create a Screen Name
Showing:

Comments (8)
Posted by RoofingDoneRight | 3 weeks ago

Please understand that just because it says "50 year lifetime warranty", Doesnt mean it will be just that !!!!!!! It all depends on the weather people. Even if you had strong rain pass through your neighborhood, call your INS company to make a claim ! Make sure you. goose a roofer before the INS adjuster comes out ( or even before calling) to make sure a claim is needed! Also make sure your roofer is always there to meet your adjuster , Very important! Ask your roofer about Polaralum radiant barrier, and installing power vents (GAF type 3 preferably). One more thing , ask your roofers if they are bilangual just to find out if they even COMMUNICATE with the actual roof laborers on the house ! You'll be surprised to learn that one.

1 0
Report Abuse

Posted by News Commentator | 3 weeks ago

They're having lots of fun on the roof in 100 degree weather.

1 1
Report Abuse

Posted by bdkennedy1 | 3 weeks ago

Ummmm, storm season is over.

0 1
Report Abuse

Posted by DZOO | 3 weeks ago

blueandthru, I had the same problem with my insurance company after big hail storm hit my neighborhood. Neighbors all got new roofs paid for by insurance except for me. I called the roofer and he advised to call insurance co. and make an appt. for second inspection. He (the roofer) told me he wanted to be there to talk to insurance agent. I made appt. and he showed up to talk to insurance agent. I don't know what he said but insurance co. changed their mind and paid for my roof!! Give it a try, won't cost you anything but time.

3 0
Report Abuse

Posted by Jdog | 3 weeks ago

I just had a my house roofed. I went with the Malarkey 50 yr class IV shingle. The roofer installed 6 nails per shingle. If you compare the roofing material samples, Malarkey was the thickest. Plus, the article above doesn't mention this, but I paid $2500 to upgrade shingles and I will save $600/ yr on insurance :-)

2
Report Abuse

Posted by texvet | 1 month ago

There are many out there who claim to be roofers, tree trimmers and other types of services that are performed on your property.
Key words, "Bonded and Insured", because you could possibly be held responsible for an injury that occurs on your property if a contractor employ is injured and the contracter does not have the proper insurance.
This caution also extends to your physical property that might be damaged by a contractor.

1 0
Report Abuse

Posted by blueandthru | 1 month ago

I paid for the more expensive architectural shingle roof with a long warranty. It has really stood up to the hail we've had by not showing impacts but rather losing the grains on it and now showing fibres. Less than half way to the warranty and it needs to be replaced.

In the last 15 years, all of the homes with the lesser shingles on my street have been replaced under insurance due to ths same hail that we received. Our insurance company after three hail storms now said no apparent hail damage so no replacememnt.

So my neighbors all had their insurance cover their roof. I'm about to have to replace mine under my nickel after 16 years on what was advertised as a 40 year roof.

Want to guess what shingle I'm going to pay for? That's right - one that shows the hail.