Back in September, when I first heard that legislation had been introduced to dramatically change Michigan’s No-Fault Auto Insurance Program, I wrote a column that expressed concern and asked some questions. What concerned me most of all, as it did many others, was the plan to end unlimited coverage for traffic accident victims. In its place would be a smorgasbord of options that range from $250,000 to $5 million.

The so-called reform plan was pushed by some members of the Republican side of the Legislature and championed by the insurance industry.  The two main arguments in favor of ending the unlimited coverage and changing the payment mechanism was that the cost “was unsustainable” and  insurers would see their premium go down. However, the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association which covers medial and rehabilitative costs for accident victims that exceed $500,000 is not subject to public disclosure, and those questioning this statement have not been allowed to check the books.

As far as the cost of the current coverage, it averages $145 per year per vehicle. That may be high or not, depending on your economic circumstances, but there hasn’t been any offering by the insurance companies on what the cost of the coverage options would be (for example, what would it cost to get a $5 million rider?) nor is there any legal guarantee that the premium will lower for this portion of a policy holder’s coverage or that it will remain lower.

Since there are an estimated 700 people annually who suffer these traumatic accidents, requiring money to be taken from the fund; if they have opted for lesser coverage, who will pay for their medical expenses and will they be given the best medical or rehabilitation treatment? Will victims even be treated or will they instead be warehoused into institutions? What about passengers or children who unknowingly get into a vehicle that has opted out of high-end coverage; how will they covered?

What I wondered at the time was: Who will pay the difference? Would it be Medicaid, a system that’s already under budgetary stress, or would we go back to the routine use of the lawsuit to recover damages from ‘at fault’ drivers, a situation that was one of the prime reasons the No-Fault bill was passed in 1972? If so, it seems to me, this will eventually increase auto premiums. I also wondered, Will the expense be shifted to health insurance costs, either directly as a provision for coverage or indirectly because hospitals and care facilities will pass on the cost to everyone with high premiums? I speculated, as well, that families, left to foot part or all of the bills, would resort even more to the option of bankruptcy.

What we’ve learned in the ensuing months is that my speculative answers to ‘Who will pay the difference?’ were accurate. These apparently would be the remedies if the legislation is passed in its present form.

Since my initial column on this topic, I learned that the House representative who introduced the bill, Peter Lund, a Republican from Shelby Township, had attached an appropriation, thus denying any referendum by the citizens of Michigan. Twice before Michigan voters had thwarted similar efforts to alter this coverage in statewide referendums. Normally, when money is needed to fund the enactment or administration of a new bill, this is done with a separate appropriation bill. The obvious motive for packaging the two with this proposed legislation was to prevent another voter reversal. When asked by a reporter ‘why’ he had done this, Rep. Lund’s curt reply was, “It’s legal.”

Well, that’s true, but I’d ask as a follow-up, “Is deliberately depriving voters of this democratic option through the use of a legal technicality politically moral?”

My other concern is that this proposal would be pushed into a partisan fight, with pressure brought to bear on reluctant Republican lawmakers to support the party rather than these lawmakers doing what they felt was best for the overall community. To me this is not a Republican or Democratic Party test of loyalty, but a consumer-protection measure that has implications for every citizen, now and in the future. A devastating traffic accident can happen to anyone.

I don’t regard the insurance industry as the enemy. They provide a necessary service to the public and are entitled to a reasonable profit. However, this coverage has served Michigan well for nearly 40 years and should be conserved, albeit with some possible and plausible reforms including cost containments. A radical upending of the coverage, pushing the inevitable costs over to health insurance and more likely Medicaid, generating a culture of lawsuits, or to simply not offer any substantial help for victims is not, in my view, either a wise or compassionate course. What’s being proposed would, instead, increase the premium profits for the auto insurers and leave policy holders with less protection.

A more profound question I posed in that September column was this one, Is our social policy here in Michigan going to continue being one of taking care of these victims, whether they were at fault or innocent, and make their lives as comfortable as possible or are we going to ignore their plight and take an out of sight, out of mind attitude?

To me, this remains the essential, underlying question posed by this altering of the No-Fault Program and why I oppose it.