truthout--2020-10-21--Facebook and Google Cash In on Misleading Ads for Nonexistent “Trumpcare”

“ Trumpcare ” insurance will “ finally fix healthcare , ” said an advertisement on Facebook .
A Google ad urged people to “ Enroll in Trumpcare plans .
Healthcare changes are coming.
” The problem is , there ’ s no such thing as “ Trumpcare.
” Facebook and Google have promised to crack down on lies and misinformation about politics in the run-up to next month ’ s presidential election , but they have run tens of thousands of ads in the past year containing false claims about health insurance reform and plans .
The “ Trumpcare ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political aim and don ’ t advocate for the reelection of President Donald Trump over former Vice President Joe Biden .
Nonetheless , the Facebook ads touting these nonexistent products have been viewed some 22 million times in the past year , disproportionately in battleground states like Texas , Florida , Georgia , North Carolina , Ohio and Pennsylvania , according to Facebook data .
The ads are placed by marketers targeting consumers — politically conservative ones in some cases — who become sales leads if they respond .
Then the consumers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hawking health insurance plans that are not the comprehensive solution that ’ s often promised , but instead are less conventional products that have traditionally been used as supplemental coverage or for when people transition between jobs .
The Affordable Care Act requires traditional health insurance plans to provide “ minimal essential coverage , ” which includes preventive care , mental health care , substance abuse , maternity and more .
The less-conventional plans are exempted from those requirements .
Some of the plans are offered by name-brand companies like UnitedHealthcare , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moneymakers for the companies that can leave patients with unexpected medical bills .
The plans ’ limitations often are not explained in the advertisements or in brokers ’ high-pressure sales presentations .
Hundreds of complaints about the plans show up on consumer sites like the Better Business Bureau or Yelp .
“ The marketing is extremely deceptive , ” said Sabrina Corlette , a research professor at Georgetown University ’ s Center on Health Insurance Reforms .
“ Both the advertising and the brokers use terms that to the average consumer would make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance plan that provides coverage if they get injured or sick .
But quite often nothing could be further from the truth.
” The misleading marketing may be ensnaring more consumers now , as an estimated 14 million Americans have lost employer-sponsored health benefits due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Google and companies involved in the marketing generally defended the term “ Trumpcare , ” saying it ’ s legitimate to use to describe the president ’ s general philosophy about health care or his 2017 executive order that allowed short-term insurance plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 12 months rather than three months .
Facebook said the word “ Trumpcare ” on its own didn ’ t violate its rules .
However , Facebook and Google both initially accepted “ Trumpcare ” ads that , after they were flagged by ProPublica , the companies later said did violate their rules .
A ProPublica reporter responded to one of the “ Trumpcare ” ads and took calls from five insurance brokers .
The brokers seemed to have no idea what type of ad had led to the call .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One said , wrongly , that “ Trumpcare ” was just a new name for “ Obamacare.
” The other four acknowledged that there ’ s no such thing as “ Trumpcare.
” “ Trumpcare ” “ is not even in existence yet , ” said another .
“ They ’ re starting to change over from ‘ Obamacare ’ to ‘ Trumpcare , ’ but it hasn ’ t switched over yet , ” a third broker said .
Traditional health care plans sold under the Affordable Care Act must comply with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discriminating against people with preexisting conditions .
But the plans are expensive , and some consumers may not qualify for the income-based subsidies that reduce the cost .
For example , a 40-year-old single person who makes more than $ 50,000 would likely not qualify for a subsidy to help pay for an individual health care plan , according to the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator .
The less conventional plans — called short-term , fixed indemnity , accident-only or specified disease plans — offered by the brokers are less expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term or give a fixed payment to cover a portion of a doctor or hospital bill .
Others pay out only if the beneficiary had some type of accident .
A purchaser would need to read the fine print to know what they did or did not cover .
ProPublica contacted the Federal Trade Commission and insurance regulators in all 50 states and found hit-and-miss enforcement of misleading ads and sales tactics .
Some states , like Delaware and Virginia , have meted out discipline for using misleading tactics to sell the limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most who spoke to ProPublica said they have no jurisdiction over the online “ lead generation ” advertisers .
The regulators say it ’ s like playing “ whack-a-mole , ” as those caught using abusive marketing tactics can simply incorporate under a new name and resume the same behavior .
Identifying deceptive tactics related to health care plans is as easy as going online and looking .
Southern California marketer Stuart Millar said he ’ s placed “ Trumpcare ” advertisements to join in “ the gold rush of online entrepreneurship.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 12,500 “ Trumpcare ” ads from four Facebook pages with “ Trumpcare ” -themed names since last October .
“ Thanks to our President , ” one of them said , “ U.S .
health insurance companies have had to drastically drop their rates.
” ( ProPublica can see how much Millar spent because he had proactively marked his ads as political , triggering Facebook to disclose this information . )
Millar isn ’ t an insurance broker — one of the people who sell insurance and are regulated by the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broker , ” a marketer in charge of running ads to drive visitors to his clients ’ websites .
There ’ s little regulation of his activities .
His ads have focused so much on the term “ Trumpcare , ” he said , because it ’ s clickbait .
He called it far more attention-getting than the “ left-wing one , ” his term for “ Obamacare.
” “ I ’ ve got to find a fun way to make health care interesting , ” Millar said .
“ ‘ Trumpcare ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t. ” “ Traffic brokers , ” like any Facebook advertiser , can select the specific demographics of the Facebook users who will see their ads .
Millar declined to get into details about how he targeted his ads , but said he mostly relied on Facebook ’ s algorithm to find him the people who ’ d click .
He said he tested thousands of iterations of the ad to make sure it found an audience .
“ What I went with was what converted , ” Millar said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads .
Some “ Trumpcare ” ads — not apparently linked to Millar — have been targeted at people Facebook labels as “ interested in Donald Trump , ” according to targeting data provided by Facebook to users along with ads that are shared with the Ad Observer project .
Millar says he didn ’ t come up with the idea of using “ Trumpcare.
” That came from his clients , whom he wouldn ’ t name .
Many of Millar ’ s ads led to a page featuring a red , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on HealthPlansAmerica.org , which is owned by a company called Apollo Interactive .
( The company is not a nonprofit , but anyone can buy a .org website address . )
Apollo Interactive isn ’ t an insurance broker either .
It ’ s what ’ s called a lead broker , yet another cog in the lightly regulated machinery of insurance “ lead generation ” marketing .
That means it gathers profiles of people who are looking for health insurance .
Those who input their information on these sites become “ leads.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for auction .
Officials from Apollo Interactive wouldn ’ t say how the company sells leads .
But Colin Sholes , an activist and former online health insurance marketer , said lead generators extract an anonymized sample of each person ’ s data : ZIP code , age , gender .
This profile , without any contact information , gets shared with potential buyers , who bid for it in an instant , automated auction .
The winning bidder or bidders get the person ’ s name and their contact information .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads ” — meaning they ’ re sold to more than one buyer at the same time .
Some of the buyers are insurance brokers .
Some are other lead brokers who bid so they can resell data that originated elsewhere .
“ It ’ s a big web and everybody ’ s interconnected , ” Sholes said .
“ A lot of data just floats around.
” So how much is each “ lead ” worth ?
Sholes estimated that a lead for a person under 55 would cost as much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more valuable if it was sold as what the industry calls a “ warm lead , ” he explained .
Some companies exist just to buy leads , then have a call center agent call and , if a human picks up , the agent “ warms you up , ” Sholes said .
That means they check to make sure the consumer is interested in buying insurance .
At that point the company sells the call to an insurance broker as a “ warm ” transfer .
“ A connected call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for up to $ 80 .
Millar confirmed he got paid by the lead , but he refused to say how much .
He did say that he made a profit on what he paid Facebook to run the ads .
He was not aware of what happens to consumers who click on his ads , then purchase the health plans .
“ I didn ’ t ever call in myself .
I am not exactly sure how any of that works.
” Facebook and Google Profit From the Misinformation This fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have come across an ad that said : “ Healthcare changes are coming .
Check out the new pricing tiers under the American Health Care Act.
” The American Health Care Act — the bill most commonly called “ Trumpcare ” — failed to pass the Senate in 2017 when the terminally ill Sen. John McCain dramatically walked across the chamber ’ s floor and gave a thumbs down , leading to the bill ’ s defeat .
So there were no new “ pricing tiers ” on offer , as the ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to Apollo ’ s HealthPlansAmerica.org site .
Apollo Interactive attorney Chris Deatherage said in a written statement that the Google ads “ appear to be old ads ” from when AHCA “ was actively being discussed in the legislature.
” Deatherage said “ Trumpcare ” is an “ abstract ” term used to “ tie together ” various pieces of intended or existing legislation and policies and that Apollo ’ s “ Trumpcare ” website said the term refers to Trump ’ s “ collective policy updates.
” He compared it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Affordable Care Act — and proposals for “ Medicare for All , ” which are not law .
He added that Apollo Interactive ’ s website lets visitors connect with brokers who can explain the term .
Google ’ s rules say it does not allow ads that “ deceive users by excluding relevant product information or providing misleading information.
” Facebook says it bans ads with “ deceptive , false , or misleading claims.
” But both accepted the “ Trumpcare ” promotions .
Google even gave the misinformation prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top-listed results when people search for affordable health insurance .
Christa Muldoon , a spokeswoman for Google said , “ Health care ads can not make misleading claims about the advertiser ’ s identity or the services they offer.
” She said Google removed the ads referencing AHCA under that policy after ProPublica contacted Google about them .
She wouldn ’ t explain why the company apparently let the ads run for years , despite violating Google ’ s rules .
Until last year , Google also sold ads that lured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government site where you can purchase plans that comply with the Affordable Care Act — even though they were for private , lead-generation websites .
It ’ s not clear how much Google earned from selling “ Trumpcare ” ads .
Unlike Facebook , Google doesn ’ t consider ads about “ Trumpcare ” political , so it doesn ’ t publish any data about them .
Muldoon would not say how much Google made from the ads .
But , she said , citing Trump ’ s executive orders on health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phrase ‘ Trumpcare ’ alone to be misleading , ” so it ’ s allowed in Google ads .
A report a year ago from Sen. Bob Casey , a Pennsylvania Democrat , criticized Google and other search engines for showing ads for for-profit lead-generation sites listed above the official Healthcare.gov site when a person searched for “ Obamacare ” or even “ Healthcare.gov.
” Casey called for search engines to put an “ answer box ” above all content , even ads , with a link to Healthcare.gov on searches for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming change to what kinds of health insurance-related ads the company will allow .
She said that Google is “ evaluating the health insurance space to strengthen our protections for users and prevent misleading ads.
” After Newsweek flagged the Facebook ads in a blog post in August , the Lead Stories news organization published a fact-check saying that “ there is no such thing as Trumpcare.
” That prompted Facebook to stop accepting the ads , under a policy that bans ads with content that fact-checkers have found to not be true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told ProPublica that some of the ads were removed for violating a Facebook policy that bans “ scammy tactics.
” But then in mid-September , more “ Trumpcare ” ads appeared on Facebook , from something called “ National Center for Medical Records , ” which didn ’ t return a request for comment .
These ads led to another company ’ s website , not Apollo ’ s .
One of them featured a smiling Trump with his arm around the shoulder of a doctor and the slogan : “ Trumpcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn more about the sales tactics involving “ Trumpcare ” ads , so we checked for ourselves .
One of the reporters on this story , Jeremy , had been laid off in May .
So he clicked on an ad in Facebook ’ s ad transparency portal , featuring photos of a health insurance card and a tuxedoed Donald Trump with Melania Trump in a ballgown .
It took him to HealthPlansAmerica.org , which prompted him to input his contact details , as well as his age , gender , address , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ major medical conditions.
” Jeremy is young and healthy , and he answered the questions honestly , so his information made him a hot prospect .
Jeremy entered a burner phone number that he acquired for this project — a good choice , because he got 67 phone calls the day he submitted the form ; the day after , he got 46 more .
The plans the brokers offered were legal , to the extent that they gave enough information to check .
But to be informed , a consumer would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits and exceptions and be provided with detailed information about what ’ s covered , or not .
The brokers often withheld crucial information .
Alex , from “ the Enrollment Center , ” said his plan offered free preventive care and would let Jeremy pick his own doctor .
Using the lingo of the Affordable Care Act he described the insurance as a “ minimum essential coverage plan.
” But that ’ s exactly what it was not .
Jeremy , who is married with no children , had to ask if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that might be relevant to a childless couple .
Alex said that would require something else , a “ major medical plan.
” When Jeremy asked Alex to email the plan documents , so he could read what the plan covered or excluded , the line disconnected .
Alex never called back .
When we called back several weeks later to ask for comment , the line was apparently disconnected .
Another company , “ Modern Health , ” would not even provide a brochure about its health plans .
A supervisor named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the company ” and that it would be a violation of patient privacy laws to send information in writing about the plan .
( It isn ’ t . )
Those details would supposedly have to come from the insurance company , and only after Jeremy signed up .
Anthony , who said he worked for the “ National Health Enrollment Agency , ” also wouldn ’ t send anything in writing .
But his reason made it sound like he needed to lock in a fare on a flight that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once we disconnect the line , the companies aren ’ t going to let me hold onto the plan , ” he said .
When Jeremy said he wanted to talk it over with his wife , Anthony countered : “ Is she a licensed broker ?
” He offered to add her to the call rather than have the couple discuss it alone .
None of the salespeople volunteered the details a consumer would need to make an informed choice .
Brandon , the salesman from Modern Health , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ HealthShield.
” It ’ s for “ things like emergency surgeries , hospitalization , ambulances and prescriptions , ” he said .
He went into painstaking detail about the amount it paid for certain items .
But when asked if he ’ d shared everything Jeremy needed to know , he said , “ It does have your essential package that a lot of people sign up for , especially at this time.
” Only later , when asked what category of insurance the plan fell under , did he say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which include substance abuse , mental health and maternity benefits.
” Reached for comment for this article , a man who said that his name was Brandon Greer and that he was now in charge of Modern Health said “ I ’ m not sure ” when asked if these omissions might confuse consumers .
He said that the company instructs its salespeople to note the exclusions “ upfront.
” He then ended the call .
When we tried to reach the National Health Enrollment Agency minutes later , to get a comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the offices of Modern Health .
The person who picked up denied knowing what the National Health Enrollment Agency was and hung up when asked his name .
Omitting the details of health insurance plans can harm consumers .
In August , the Government Accountability Office , the auditing and investigative unit of Congress , published a secret shopper investigation of the sales tactics for the plans .
GAO investigators tested 31 brokers by using a fake persona , a person who had a preexisting condition .
Eight of the 31 brokers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One was selling the GAO investigator — who claimed to have diabetes — a health insurance plan that the broker said would cover the investigator ’ s diabetes , but it really didn ’ t .
In a different case , the investigator told the broker that they had diabetes , but the application completed by the sales representative said there was no treatment or diagnosis for diabetes in the past five years .
“ This indicates that the broker may have intentionally falsified information , ” the report said .
The GAO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of the brokers in its report , but it said it referred them to the Federal Trade Commission and state insurance regulators .
USHEALTH Advisors , one of the companies whose broker contacted Jeremy , posts videos online to show off how much money its brokers are making selling limited insurance plans .
“ How much can you earn monthly at US Health Advisors ?
” asks one of the videos , posted by US Health Advisors Coral Springs .
“ $ 16,000 , ” says a bearded man in a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says a man in a dress shirt and tie , a family photo in the background behind him .
Then , the closer : “ $ 42,000 — in one month , ” a man says .
Justin Brain , the USHEALTH benefits specialist whose number is on the US Health Advisors Coral Springs Facebook page , said commissions vary depending on a broker ’ s “ production , ” or sales totals .
He declined to say how much the commissions were per sale , but he said the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recruits to “ give them what ’ s possible.
” An April study by the Urban Institute found brokers making commissions of around 25 % for the type of plans offered by the company .
Other insurance brokers told ProPublica the commissions on some plans could be as much as 50 % .
The video closes with a USHEALTH Advisors logo that adds , “ A UnitedHealthcare Company.
” UnitedHealthcare is a massive company that provides health insurance and benefits .
It ’ s part of UnitedHealth Group , one of the largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 242 billion in annual revenue in 2019 .
UnitedHealthcare declined to say how much the brokers made in commissions .
A USHEALTH broker pitched Jeremy a plan sponsored by Freedom Life Insurance Company of America , which is also a UnitedHealthcare company .
The broker characterized the coverage as similar to Affordable Care Act plans and sent a 36-page brochure that laid out the details of the offer .
The document he sent made it clear that the Freedom Life plan would provide limited coverage that could leave a person with hefty bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savvy consumer to sort through dozens of pages of insurance jargon to understand that .
At ProPublica ’ s request , Jeffrey Hogan , the Northeast regional manager for Rogers Benefit Group , a national benefits marketing firm , examined the document .
Hogan pointed out that it disclosed on Page 3 that the plans would “ supplement ” any “ essential health benefit plan , ” meaning one of the more comprehensive plans sold under the Affordable Care Act .
If this plan was meant as a supplement , then it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was not mentioned in Jeremy ’ s sales presentation from the Freedom Life broker .
One portion of the plan listed its “ maximum ” benefit for various “ defined ” sicknesses .
It did not say what its “ minimum ” payment might be .
The daily maximum paid under the plan for an X-ray would be $ 50 .
For a CAT scan it would be $ 200 .
For an outpatient lab it would be $ 30 .
Each of those procedures could cost many hundreds of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the plan a “ cascading mess ” of coverage for specific conditions .
“ I wouldn ’ t sell this stuff if it was the last piece of garbage on earth , ” Hogan said .
The limited benefit , accident or defined benefit plans like the ones offered by Freedom Life are highly profitable for the companies that operate them , Hogan said .
“ They pay very little out on the dollar , ” he said .
In 2019 , Freedom Life took in $ 171 million for Accident and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a report by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners .
Its “ loss ratio ” was 46 % , the report said , which means Freedom Life spent less than half of what it brought in from premiums on medical claims and funding its reserves .
That leaves plenty of revenue for profit and to pay commissions and fees to brokers and lead generators .
By comparison , the plans sold under the Affordable Care Act have a minimum loss ratio of 80 % to 85 % , meaning 80 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent on medical care for the people paying premiums .
If companies spend less , they are required to refund the difference to consumers or employers .
Hogan said that he ’ s been selling insurance for 35 years and that it wasn ’ t easy for him to sift through all the jargon and limits and caveats about coverage in the Freedom Life document .
One of the most insidious details was “ buried ” on Page 22 , Hogan said .
That ’ s where the company disclosed that any cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health condition would not be covered under the short-term plan included in the package .
“ This just makes my blood boil , ” Hogan said .
“ This hurts people.
” Maria Gordon-Shydlo , a spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare , said in an email the plans provided by USHEALTH provide “ valuable health coverage options to meet people ’ s individual financial and care needs.
” Its brokers present various options , including Affordable Care Act plans , to help people find the plan that ’ s best for them , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St. Louis , signed up for a plan through Freedom Life Insurance in 2018 when she was working as a freelance writer .
She searched for affordable health insurance on Google and put in her phone number on a website that promised she ’ d receive quotes .
She got inundated with phone calls that went on for more than a year .
Jacobi is relatively healthy , so she figured she didn ’ t need to pay for the more comprehensive , higher-priced plans offered under the Affordable Care Act .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life and said she was under the impression at the time that the package of limited health plans provided by Freedom Life would make sense for her .
Her monthly premium came to $ 224 — not cheap , she said .
Jacobi admits that she didn ’ t do her due diligence when she signed up for the coverage .
“ I feel silly about this now , but I just trusted them , ” Jacobi said .
She doesn ’ t remember her exact conversations with the agent , and UnitedHealthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sales calls , and that it would not provide a recording or transcript of a follow-up call .
Jacobi insisted that she would have made sure she had coverage for routine visits to her internist and obstetrician-gynecologist , but after she went to the doctors she received bills for lab work that came to $ 311 and $ 710 .
After about a dozen hours on the phone with Freedom Life ’ s customer service representatives , Jacobi said the bills still hadn ’ t been paid .
So she wrote a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a phone call from a company vice president who helped make sure the insurer paid the bills .
In another case , the Freedom Life plan did not cover a drug Jacobi needed .
And when she needed a minor surgical procedure she learned it would not be covered by the plan , so she paid cash .
Gordon-Shydlo , the UnitedHealthcare spokeswoman , said Jacobi had selected coverage that had a lower premium but only covered specific diseases , accidents and other items .
The insurer complied with its “ stringent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s questions and correctly paid her claims , Gordon-Shydlo said .
Jacobi is now covered by a health plan sponsored by her employer .
She regrets getting caught up with Freedom Life .
“ It makes you feel really stupid that you fell for it , ” she said .
Frank Pyle has been chasing junk insurance companies for years as the director of market conduct enforcement for the Delaware Department of Insurance .
“ As soon as you take one down another one pops up in its place.
” Pyle said regulators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by insurers selling limited , short term , accident and defined sickness plans .
Pyle and his team in Delaware have to get throwaway phones when they play secret shopper on the lead generating websites , because the lines get inundated with so many calls from brokers .
In one investigation , Pyle said his team listened to a random sample of 87 recorded sales calls from a particular company .
At least half of them contained some form of deception , he said .
The level of misrepresentation seemed to depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
A consumer would ask if the limited plan was the same as an Obamacare plan and the broker would tell them it ’ s just as good .
If the consumer asked if the plan covered diabetes , the broker would tell them it did when it didn ’ t , he said .
The case resulted in a fine against the company , he said .
When some states identify violations , they impose weighty penalties , like fines or revoking the license of a broker .
But in others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to warnings .
Numerous state insurance commissioners have warned consumers to “ be wary of telemarketers from the ‘ national enrollment center , ’ ‘ national healthcare center , ’ or other official-sounding names.
” The Virginia State Corporation Commission settled a case for $ 6,300 with Freedom Life that alleged the company misrepresented benefits or terms of a policy with advertising that was “ untrue , deceptive or misleading ” and failed to give applicants a summary of their rights .
The company agreed to a corrective action plan that addressed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare , which owns Freedom Life , said in an email that the company ’ s brochures included notices about the limitations of the products and that the company did not admit to any violation of the law .
It was hard to find state regulatory agencies that had taken action against lead generating companies .
One state insurance regulator , who spoke anonymously because he didn ’ t want his colleagues to be criticized , said his agency “ probably ” has the authority to regulate the lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling or soliciting the sale of insurance .
“ But it ’ s something we haven ’ t done in the past , ” the regulator said .
“ It ’ s something that hasn ’ t been the best use of our time.
” New Mexico ’ s superintendent of insurance issued an official warning , saying it intended to hold insurance brokers and companies responsible for “ abusive marketing practices by lead generators.
” It also said the kinds of sales tactics used by brokers — such as referring to limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” plans — were misleading and deceptive , and banned them .
Corlette , the Georgetown insurance expert , said the Federal Trade Commission could take a “ more aggressive ” look at deceptive advertising and lead generating .
An FTC spokeswoman said in an email that the agency is “ concerned with illegal lead generation across the board , ” but could point to only five enforcement actions that related to the deceptive marketing of health care plans .
Only one of the cases took place within the past five years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FTC ’ s jurisdiction includes almost any sales claim that is “ unfair ” or is misleading and would affect a consumer ’ s decision to buy , says Aaron Rieke , a former FTC staff attorney .
Because the agency is “ super understaffed for their jurisdiction , ” he said , its attorneys aim to take enforcement actions that yield real systemic improvement for consumers .
But the fact that the lead-generation ecosystem includes many small players who buy ads on Google , Facebook and elsewhere presents a “ structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ] down doesn ’ t feel like a very effective way to go.
” Pyle said the state regulators should hold the insurance companies responsible for their advertising tactics , including the actions of lead generators .
In 2016 , the Delaware Department of Insurance fined Companion Life Insurance Company $ 487,000 for violations that included “ deceptive acts , ” documents show .
Many of the problems in the case came from the lead generators the insurer was paying to do the outreach to consumers , Pyle said .
A person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ProPublica to its parent organization , BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina .
But no one returned requests for comment .
Pyle said he ’ s troubled that legitimate insurance giants own some of what he calls the “ bad companies.
” “ I ’ ll be honest with you , ” he said .
“ I am surprised UnitedHealthcare is involved as much as it is.
” Pyle said regulators from various states have regular meetings and are considering pursuing criminal action against insurance company executives .
“ If the insurance company is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are responsible for their actions , ” Pyle said .
“ You can fine these companies and they consider it the cost of doing business .
But if you lock up their CEO in federal prison , they ’ ll think twice about harming our consumers .
”

The platforms have run tens of thousands of ads in the past year containing false claims about health insurance plans.
“Trumpcare” insurance will “finally fix healthcare,” said an advertisement on Facebook.
A Google ad urged people to “Enroll in Trumpcare plans. Healthcare changes are coming.”
The problem is, there’s no such thing as “Trumpcare.”
Facebook and Google have promised to crack down on lies and misinformation about politics in the run-up to next month’s presidential election, but they have run tens of thousands of ads in the past year containing false claims about health insurance reform and plans.
The “Trumpcare” ads don’t appear to have a political aim and don’t advocate for the reelection of President Donald Trump over former Vice President Joe Biden. Nonetheless, the Facebook ads touting these nonexistent products have been viewed some 22 million times in the past year, disproportionately in battleground states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Facebook data.
The ads are placed by marketers targeting consumers — politically conservative ones in some cases — who become sales leads if they respond. Then the consumers get deluged with phone calls from brokers hawking health insurance plans that are not the comprehensive solution that’s often promised, but instead are less conventional products that have traditionally been used as supplemental coverage or for when people transition between jobs.
The Affordable Care Act requires traditional health insurance plans to provide “minimal essential coverage,” which includes preventive care, mental health care, substance abuse, maternity and more. The less-conventional plans are exempted from those requirements. Some of the plans are offered by name-brand companies like UnitedHealthcare, but critics say they’re typically big moneymakers for the companies that can leave patients with unexpected medical bills. The plans’ limitations often are not explained in the advertisements or in brokers’ high-pressure sales presentations. Hundreds of complaints about the plans show up on consumer sites like the Better Business Bureau or Yelp.
“The marketing is extremely deceptive,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “Both the advertising and the brokers use terms that to the average consumer would make them think they are buying a comprehensive insurance plan that provides coverage if they get injured or sick. But quite often nothing could be further from the truth.”
The misleading marketing may be ensnaring more consumers now, as an estimated 14 million Americans have lost employer-sponsored health benefits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Google and companies involved in the marketing generally defended the term “Trumpcare,” saying it’s legitimate to use to describe the president’s general philosophy about health care or his 2017 executive order that allowed short-term insurance plans to cover a time period of up to 12 months rather than three months. Facebook said the word “Trumpcare” on its own didn’t violate its rules. However, Facebook and Google both initially accepted “Trumpcare” ads that, after they were flagged by ProPublica, the companies later said did violate their rules.
A ProPublica reporter responded to one of the “Trumpcare” ads and took calls from five insurance brokers. The brokers seemed to have no idea what type of ad had led to the call. They were focused on closing the deal. One said, wrongly, that “Trumpcare” was just a new name for “Obamacare.” The other four acknowledged that there’s no such thing as “Trumpcare.”
“It’s fake news,” said one.
“Trumpcare” “is not even in existence yet,” said another.
“They’re starting to change over from ‘Obamacare’ to ‘Trumpcare,’ but it hasn’t switched over yet,” a third broker said.
Traditional health care plans sold under the Affordable Care Act must comply with a host of regulations, including not discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. But the plans are expensive, and some consumers may not qualify for the income-based subsidies that reduce the cost. For example, a 40-year-old single person who makes more than $50,000 would likely not qualify for a subsidy to help pay for an individual health care plan, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator.
The less conventional plans — called short-term, fixed indemnity, accident-only or specified disease plans — offered by the brokers are less expensive. Some provide benefits for a short term or give a fixed payment to cover a portion of a doctor or hospital bill. Others pay out only if the beneficiary had some type of accident. A purchaser would need to read the fine print to know what they did or did not cover.
ProPublica contacted the Federal Trade Commission and insurance regulators in all 50 states and found hit-and-miss enforcement of misleading ads and sales tactics. Some states, like Delaware and Virginia, have meted out discipline for using misleading tactics to sell the limited plans. But many have not. Most who spoke to ProPublica said they have no jurisdiction over the online “lead generation” advertisers. The regulators say it’s like playing “whack-a-mole,” as those caught using abusive marketing tactics can simply incorporate under a new name and resume the same behavior.
Online “Lead Generators” Lure in Consumers
Identifying deceptive tactics related to health care plans is as easy as going online and looking.
Southern California marketer Stuart Millar said he’s placed “Trumpcare” advertisements to join in “the gold rush of online entrepreneurship.”
Millar has spent at least $350,000 on 12,500 “Trumpcare” ads from four Facebook pages with “Trumpcare”-themed names since last October. “Thanks to our President,” one of them said, “U.S. health insurance companies have had to drastically drop their rates.” (ProPublica can see how much Millar spent because he had proactively marked his ads as political, triggering Facebook to disclose this information.)
Millar isn’t an insurance broker — one of the people who sell insurance and are regulated by the states. He’s a “traffic broker,” a marketer in charge of running ads to drive visitors to his clients’ websites. There’s little regulation of his activities. His ads have focused so much on the term “Trumpcare,” he said, because it’s clickbait. He called it far more attention-getting than the “left-wing one,” his term for “Obamacare.”
“I’ve got to find a fun way to make health care interesting,” Millar said. “‘Trumpcare’ is interesting but health care in general isn’t.”
“Traffic brokers,” like any Facebook advertiser, can select the specific demographics of the Facebook users who will see their ads.
Millar declined to get into details about how he targeted his ads, but said he mostly relied on Facebook’s algorithm to find him the people who’d click. He said he tested thousands of iterations of the ad to make sure it found an audience. “What I went with was what converted,” Millar said, a reference to people responding to the ads.
Some “Trumpcare” ads — not apparently linked to Millar — have been targeted at people Facebook labels as “interested in Donald Trump,” according to targeting data provided by Facebook to users along with ads that are shared with the Ad Observer project.
Millar says he didn’t come up with the idea of using “Trumpcare.” That came from his clients, whom he wouldn’t name. Many of Millar’s ads led to a page featuring a red, white and blue “Trumpcare” logo on HealthPlansAmerica.org, which is owned by a company called Apollo Interactive. (The company is not a nonprofit, but anyone can buy a .org website address.)
Apollo Interactive isn’t an insurance broker either. It’s what’s called a lead broker, yet another cog in the lightly regulated machinery of insurance “lead generation” marketing. That means it gathers profiles of people who are looking for health insurance. Those who input their information on these sites become “leads.” And then they’re put up for auction.
Officials from Apollo Interactive wouldn’t say how the company sells leads. But Colin Sholes, an activist and former online health insurance marketer, said lead generators extract an anonymized sample of each person’s data: ZIP code, age, gender. This profile, without any contact information, gets shared with potential buyers, who bid for it in an instant, automated auction. The winning bidder or bidders get the person’s name and their contact information.
Leads are often sold as “shared leads” — meaning they’re sold to more than one buyer at the same time. Some of the buyers are insurance brokers. Some are other lead brokers who bid so they can resell data that originated elsewhere. “It’s a big web and everybody’s interconnected,” Sholes said. “A lot of data just floats around.”
So how much is each “lead” worth? Sholes estimated that a lead for a person under 55 would cost as much as $20.
The lead might be even more valuable if it was sold as what the industry calls a “warm lead,” he explained. Some companies exist just to buy leads, then have a call center agent call and, if a human picks up, the agent “warms you up,” Sholes said. That means they check to make sure the consumer is interested in buying insurance. At that point the company sells the call to an insurance broker as a “warm” transfer. “A connected call,” he said, might sell for up to $80.
Millar confirmed he got paid by the lead, but he refused to say how much. He did say that he made a profit on what he paid Facebook to run the ads. He was not aware of what happens to consumers who click on his ads, then purchase the health plans. “I didn’t ever call in myself. I am not exactly sure how any of that works.”
Facebook and Google Profit From the Misinformation
This fall, someone Googling for affordable health insurance might have come across an ad that said: “Healthcare changes are coming. Check out the new pricing tiers under the American Health Care Act.”
The American Health Care Act — the bill most commonly called “Trumpcare” — failed to pass the Senate in 2017 when the terminally ill Sen. John McCain dramatically walked across the chamber’s floor and gave a thumbs down, leading to the bill’s defeat. So there were no new “pricing tiers” on offer, as the ad claimed, in 2020.
Those ads led to Apollo’s HealthPlansAmerica.org site. Apollo Interactive attorney Chris Deatherage said in a written statement that the Google ads “appear to be old ads” from when AHCA “was actively being discussed in the legislature.”
Deatherage said “Trumpcare” is an “abstract” term used to “tie together” various pieces of intended or existing legislation and policies and that Apollo’s “Trumpcare” website said the term refers to Trump’s “collective policy updates.” He compared it to “Obamacare” — which specifically refers to the Affordable Care Act — and proposals for “Medicare for All,” which are not law. He added that Apollo Interactive’s website lets visitors connect with brokers who can explain the term.
Google’s rules say it does not allow ads that “deceive users by excluding relevant product information or providing misleading information.” Facebook says it bans ads with “deceptive, false, or misleading claims.” But both accepted the “Trumpcare” promotions. Google even gave the misinformation prime real estate, with the ads as the top-listed results when people search for affordable health insurance.
Christa Muldoon, a spokeswoman for Google said, “Health care ads cannot make misleading claims about the advertiser’s identity or the services they offer.” She said Google removed the ads referencing AHCA under that policy after ProPublica contacted Google about them. She wouldn’t explain why the company apparently let the ads run for years, despite violating Google’s rules.
Until last year, Google also sold ads that lured in consumers with the phrase Healthcare.gov — the federal government site where you can purchase plans that comply with the Affordable Care Act — even though they were for private, lead-generation websites.
It’s not clear how much Google earned from selling “Trumpcare” ads. Unlike Facebook, Google doesn’t consider ads about “Trumpcare” political, so it doesn’t publish any data about them. Muldoon would not say how much Google made from the ads.
But, she said, citing Trump’s executive orders on health care, “We do not consider the phrase ‘Trumpcare’ alone to be misleading,” so it’s allowed in Google ads.
A report a year ago from Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, criticized Google and other search engines for showing ads for for-profit lead-generation sites listed above the official Healthcare.gov site when a person searched for “Obamacare” or even “Healthcare.gov.” Casey called for search engines to put an “answer box” above all content, even ads, with a link to Healthcare.gov on searches for health insurance.
Muldoon hinted at a coming change to what kinds of health insurance-related ads the company will allow. She said that Google is “evaluating the health insurance space to strengthen our protections for users and prevent misleading ads.”
After Newsweek flagged the Facebook ads in a blog post in August, the Lead Stories news organization published a fact-check saying that “there is no such thing as Trumpcare.” That prompted Facebook to stop accepting the ads, under a policy that bans ads with content that fact-checkers have found to not be true.
Devon Kearns, a Facebook spokesperson, told ProPublica that some of the ads were removed for violating a Facebook policy that bans “scammy tactics.”
But then in mid-September, more “Trumpcare” ads appeared on Facebook, from something called “National Center for Medical Records,” which didn’t return a request for comment. These ads led to another company’s website, not Apollo’s. One of them featured a smiling Trump with his arm around the shoulder of a doctor and the slogan: “Trumpcare from $1/Day.”
Omissions and High-Pressure Sales
ProPublica wanted to learn more about the sales tactics involving “Trumpcare” ads, so we checked for ourselves. One of the reporters on this story, Jeremy, had been laid off in May. So he clicked on an ad in Facebook’s ad transparency portal, featuring photos of a health insurance card and a tuxedoed Donald Trump with Melania Trump in a ballgown. It took him to HealthPlansAmerica.org, which prompted him to input his contact details, as well as his age, gender, address, income range and whether he had any “major medical conditions.”
Jeremy is young and healthy, and he answered the questions honestly, so his information made him a hot prospect.
Jeremy entered a burner phone number that he acquired for this project — a good choice, because he got 67 phone calls the day he submitted the form; the day after, he got 46 more. The plans the brokers offered were legal, to the extent that they gave enough information to check. But to be informed, a consumer would want to know each plan’s limits and exceptions and be provided with detailed information about what’s covered, or not. The brokers often withheld crucial information.
Alex, from “the Enrollment Center,” said his plan offered free preventive care and would let Jeremy pick his own doctor. Using the lingo of the Affordable Care Act he described the insurance as a “minimum essential coverage plan.” But that’s exactly what it was not. Jeremy, who is married with no children, had to ask if the plan covered maternity costs, something that might be relevant to a childless couple. Alex said that would require something else, a “major medical plan.”
When Jeremy asked Alex to email the plan documents, so he could read what the plan covered or excluded, the line disconnected. Alex never called back.
When we called back several weeks later to ask for comment, the line was apparently disconnected.
Another company, “Modern Health,” would not even provide a brochure about its health plans. A supervisor named Louis said he was “in charge of the company” and that it would be a violation of patient privacy laws to send information in writing about the plan. (It isn’t.) Those details would supposedly have to come from the insurance company, and only after Jeremy signed up.
Anthony, who said he worked for the “National Health Enrollment Agency,” also wouldn’t send anything in writing. But his reason made it sound like he needed to lock in a fare on a flight that was rapidly running out of seats. “Once we disconnect the line, the companies aren’t going to let me hold onto the plan,” he said.
When Jeremy said he wanted to talk it over with his wife, Anthony countered: “Is she a licensed broker?” He offered to add her to the call rather than have the couple discuss it alone.
None of the salespeople volunteered the details a consumer would need to make an informed choice. Brandon, the salesman from Modern Health, for example, offered a plan from a company called “HealthShield.” It’s for “things like emergency surgeries, hospitalization, ambulances and prescriptions,” he said. He went into painstaking detail about the amount it paid for certain items. But when asked if he’d shared everything Jeremy needed to know, he said, “It does have your essential package that a lot of people sign up for, especially at this time.” Only later, when asked what category of insurance the plan fell under, did he say that “they do remove certain things, which include substance abuse, mental health and maternity benefits.”
Reached for comment for this article, a man who said that his name was Brandon Greer and that he was now in charge of Modern Health said “I’m not sure” when asked if these omissions might confuse consumers. He said that the company instructs its salespeople to note the exclusions “upfront.” He then ended the call.
When we tried to reach the National Health Enrollment Agency minutes later, to get a comment for this story, the phone rang at the offices of Modern Health. The person who picked up denied knowing what the National Health Enrollment Agency was and hung up when asked his name.
Omitting the details of health insurance plans can harm consumers. In August, the Government Accountability Office, the auditing and investigative unit of Congress, published a secret shopper investigation of the sales tactics for the plans. GAO investigators tested 31 brokers by using a fake persona, a person who had a preexisting condition. Eight of the 31 brokers made misstatements, the report says. One was selling the GAO investigator — who claimed to have diabetes — a health insurance plan that the broker said would cover the investigator’s diabetes, but it really didn’t. In a different case, the investigator told the broker that they had diabetes, but the application completed by the sales representative said there was no treatment or diagnosis for diabetes in the past five years. “This indicates that the broker may have intentionally falsified information,” the report said.
The GAO didn’t disclose the names of any of the brokers in its report, but it said it referred them to the Federal Trade Commission and state insurance regulators.
“Garbage” Insurance Generates Profit for Brokers and Insurance Companies
USHEALTH Advisors, one of the companies whose broker contacted Jeremy, posts videos online to show off how much money its brokers are making selling limited insurance plans.
“How much can you earn monthly at US Health Advisors?” asks one of the videos, posted by US Health Advisors Coral Springs.
“$16,000,” says a bearded man in a black shirt and tie.
“$18,000,” says a woman in a sleeveless top.
“$34,000,” says a man in a dress shirt and tie, a family photo in the background behind him.
Then, the closer: “$42,000 — in one month,” a man says.
Justin Brain, the USHEALTH benefits specialist whose number is on the US Health Advisors Coral Springs Facebook page, said commissions vary depending on a broker’s “production,” or sales totals. He declined to say how much the commissions were per sale, but he said the video is used for bringing in new sales recruits to “give them what’s possible.”
An April study by the Urban Institute found brokers making commissions of around 25% for the type of plans offered by the company. Other insurance brokers told ProPublica the commissions on some plans could be as much as 50%.
The video closes with a USHEALTH Advisors logo that adds, “A UnitedHealthcare Company.” UnitedHealthcare is a massive company that provides health insurance and benefits. It’s part of UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest companies in the country, with $242 billion in annual revenue in 2019. UnitedHealthcare declined to say how much the brokers made in commissions.
A USHEALTH broker pitched Jeremy a plan sponsored by Freedom Life Insurance Company of America, which is also a UnitedHealthcare company. The broker characterized the coverage as similar to Affordable Care Act plans and sent a 36-page brochure that laid out the details of the offer.
The document he sent made it clear that the Freedom Life plan would provide limited coverage that could leave a person with hefty bills. But it would take an exceptionally savvy consumer to sort through dozens of pages of insurance jargon to understand that. At ProPublica’s request, Jeffrey Hogan, the Northeast regional manager for Rogers Benefit Group, a national benefits marketing firm, examined the document.
Hogan pointed out that it disclosed on Page 3 that the plans would “supplement” any “essential health benefit plan,” meaning one of the more comprehensive plans sold under the Affordable Care Act. If this plan was meant as a supplement, then it would not be ideal for an uninsured couple. This was not mentioned in Jeremy’s sales presentation from the Freedom Life broker.
One portion of the plan listed its “maximum” benefit for various “defined” sicknesses. It did not say what its “minimum” payment might be. The daily maximum paid under the plan for an X-ray would be $50. For a CAT scan it would be $200. For an outpatient lab it would be $30. Each of those procedures could cost many hundreds of dollars more than the maximum benefit.
Hogan called the plan a “cascading mess” of coverage for specific conditions. “I wouldn’t sell this stuff if it was the last piece of garbage on earth,” Hogan said.
The limited benefit, accident or defined benefit plans like the ones offered by Freedom Life are highly profitable for the companies that operate them, Hogan said. “They pay very little out on the dollar,” he said.
In 2019, Freedom Life took in $171 million for Accident and Health policies covering about 291,000 people, according to a report by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Its “loss ratio” was 46%, the report said, which means Freedom Life spent less than half of what it brought in from premiums on medical claims and funding its reserves. That leaves plenty of revenue for profit and to pay commissions and fees to brokers and lead generators.
By comparison, the plans sold under the Affordable Care Act have a minimum loss ratio of 80% to 85%, meaning 80 to 85 cents of every dollar must be spent on medical care for the people paying premiums. If companies spend less, they are required to refund the difference to consumers or employers.
Hogan said that he’s been selling insurance for 35 years and that it wasn’t easy for him to sift through all the jargon and limits and caveats about coverage in the Freedom Life document. One of the most insidious details was “buried” on Page 22, Hogan said. That’s where the company disclosed that any cost incurred as a result of a preexisting health condition would not be covered under the short-term plan included in the package. “This just makes my blood boil,” Hogan said. “This hurts people.”
Maria Gordon-Shydlo, a spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare, said in an email the plans provided by USHEALTH provide “valuable health coverage options to meet people’s individual financial and care needs.” Its brokers present various options, including Affordable Care Act plans, to help people find the plan that’s best for them, she said.
Jorie Jacobi, a 31-year-old from St. Louis, signed up for a plan through Freedom Life Insurance in 2018 when she was working as a freelance writer. She searched for affordable health insurance on Google and put in her phone number on a website that promised she’d receive quotes. She got inundated with phone calls that went on for more than a year.
Jacobi is relatively healthy, so she figured she didn’t need to pay for the more comprehensive, higher-priced plans offered under the Affordable Care Act. She spoke to a USHEALTH agent selling Freedom Life and said she was under the impression at the time that the package of limited health plans provided by Freedom Life would make sense for her. Her monthly premium came to $224 — not cheap, she said.
Jacobi admits that she didn’t do her due diligence when she signed up for the coverage. “I feel silly about this now, but I just trusted them,” Jacobi said. She doesn’t remember her exact conversations with the agent, and UnitedHealthcare said that there are no recordings of the sales calls, and that it would not provide a recording or transcript of a follow-up call. Jacobi insisted that she would have made sure she had coverage for routine visits to her internist and obstetrician-gynecologist, but after she went to the doctors she received bills for lab work that came to $311 and $710.
After about a dozen hours on the phone with Freedom Life’s customer service representatives, Jacobi said the bills still hadn’t been paid. So she wrote a negative review on Yelp. That led to a phone call from a company vice president who helped make sure the insurer paid the bills.
In another case, the Freedom Life plan did not cover a drug Jacobi needed. And when she needed a minor surgical procedure she learned it would not be covered by the plan, so she paid cash.
Gordon-Shydlo, the UnitedHealthcare spokeswoman, said Jacobi had selected coverage that had a lower premium but only covered specific diseases, accidents and other items. The insurer complied with its “stringent application process” and addressed Jacobi’s questions and correctly paid her claims, Gordon-Shydlo said.
Jacobi is now covered by a health plan sponsored by her employer. She regrets getting caught up with Freedom Life. “It makes you feel really stupid that you fell for it,” she said.
Regulators Play “Whack-a-Mole”
Frank Pyle has been chasing junk insurance companies for years as the director of market conduct enforcement for the Delaware Department of Insurance. “As soon as you take one down another one pops up in its place.”
Pyle said regulators across the country are aware of misrepresentations by insurers selling limited, short term, accident and defined sickness plans.
Pyle and his team in Delaware have to get throwaway phones when they play secret shopper on the lead generating websites, because the lines get inundated with so many calls from brokers.
In one investigation, Pyle said his team listened to a random sample of 87 recorded sales calls from a particular company. At least half of them contained some form of deception, he said. The level of misrepresentation seemed to depend on the savviness of the consumer, he said. A consumer would ask if the limited plan was the same as an Obamacare plan and the broker would tell them it’s just as good. If the consumer asked if the plan covered diabetes, the broker would tell them it did when it didn’t, he said. The case resulted in a fine against the company, he said.
When some states identify violations, they impose weighty penalties, like fines or revoking the license of a broker. But in others the penalties are light or sometimes limited to warnings.
Numerous state insurance commissioners have warned consumers to “be wary of telemarketers from the ‘national enrollment center,’ ‘national healthcare center,’ or other official-sounding names.”
The Virginia State Corporation Commission settled a case for $6,300 with Freedom Life that alleged the company misrepresented benefits or terms of a policy with advertising that was “untrue, deceptive or misleading” and failed to give applicants a summary of their rights. The company agreed to a corrective action plan that addressed the alleged violations, documents show. Gordon-Shydlo, the spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare, which owns Freedom Life, said in an email that the company’s brochures included notices about the limitations of the products and that the company did not admit to any violation of the law.
It was hard to find state regulatory agencies that had taken action against lead generating companies. One state insurance regulator, who spoke anonymously because he didn’t want his colleagues to be criticized, said his agency “probably” has the authority to regulate the lead generators, because they are engaged in selling or soliciting the sale of insurance. “But it’s something we haven’t done in the past,” the regulator said. “It’s something that hasn’t been the best use of our time.”
New Mexico’s superintendent of insurance issued an official warning, saying it intended to hold insurance brokers and companies responsible for “abusive marketing practices by lead generators.” It also said the kinds of sales tactics used by brokers — such as referring to limited plans with terms associated with “Obamacare” plans — were misleading and deceptive, and banned them.
Corlette, the Georgetown insurance expert, said the Federal Trade Commission could take a “more aggressive” look at deceptive advertising and lead generating. An FTC spokeswoman said in an email that the agency is “concerned with illegal lead generation across the board,” but could point to only five enforcement actions that related to the deceptive marketing of health care plans. Only one of the cases took place within the past five years. None involved Millar or Apollo Interactive.
The FTC’s jurisdiction includes almost any sales claim that is “unfair” or is misleading and would affect a consumer’s decision to buy, says Aaron Rieke, a former FTC staff attorney. Because the agency is “super understaffed for their jurisdiction,” he said, its attorneys aim to take enforcement actions that yield real systemic improvement for consumers. But the fact that the lead-generation ecosystem includes many small players who buy ads on Google, Facebook and elsewhere presents a “structural challenge” — because “swatting [them] down doesn’t feel like a very effective way to go.”
Pyle said the state regulators should hold the insurance companies responsible for their advertising tactics, including the actions of lead generators. In 2016, the Delaware Department of Insurance fined Companion Life Insurance Company $487,000 for violations that included “deceptive acts,” documents show. Many of the problems in the case came from the lead generators the insurer was paying to do the outreach to consumers, Pyle said.
A person in the Companion Life compliance department referred ProPublica to its parent organization, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina. But no one returned requests for comment.
Pyle said he’s troubled that legitimate insurance giants own some of what he calls the “bad companies.” “I’ll be honest with you,” he said. “I am surprised UnitedHealthcare is involved as much as it is.”
Pyle said regulators from various states have regular meetings and are considering pursuing criminal action against insurance company executives. “If the insurance company is paying someone to work on their behalf, they are responsible for their actions,” Pyle said. “You can fine these companies and they consider it the cost of doing business. But if you lock up their CEO in federal prison, they’ll think twice about harming our consumers.”
Doris Burke contributed reporting.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-21--McConnell Admits to Sabotaging COVID Relief Talks to Rush Barrett Confirmation

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues Tuesday that he has privately been urging the Trump White House not to strike a coronavirus relief deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the November 3 election , warning that an agreement could interfere with his chamber ’ s plan to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court early next week .
McConnell ’ s remarks , first reported by the Washington Post , came during a closed-door Senate GOP lunch just ahead of a Tuesday evening deadline for a relief deal set by Pelosi and agreed to by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came and went without a deal , the House Speaker told Democratic lawmakers late Tuesday that the two sides “ have been making some progress ” and continued to voice optimism that “ we can reach an agreement before the election.
” But with the election less than two weeks away , the window to hash out the details of the legislative package — which currently includes a desperately needed boost in unemployment benefits , another round of stimulus checks , and aid to state and local governments — and push it through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pelosi acknowledged that reality on Tuesday , telling reporters that legislation would have to be written by the end of this week for it to have any chance of reaching President Donald Trump ’ s desk before Election Day .
Even if the White House and Pelosi come to an agreement , it remains unclear whether enough GOP senators would be willing to vote for a big spending package , despite the catastrophic economic consequences of blocking additional relief .
Assuming a united Democratic caucus , any legislation would need at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While McConnell ’ s stated excuse for standing in the way of relief is his commitment to confirming Barrett as quickly as possible , that justification may be intended to obscure the fact that many Senate Republicans are simply opposed to additional coronavirus aid , whether or not the package would disrupt the right-wing judge ’ s path to the Supreme Court .
Others have warned in recent days that in preparation for a potential Trump loss next month , McConnell is laying the groundwork to force crippling austerity under a Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very clear about this : Mitch McConnell and Republicans are continuing to block essential relief to Americans across our country , ” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) , co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus .
“ If Trump wants to ‘ go big or go home , ’ he better see if he can control his own party.
” The wrangling on Capitol Hill comes amid a backdrop of deepening misery for tens of millions of Americans as the coronavirus continues to spread and the economic collapse brought on by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusal to take sufficient action in response — shows no sign of letting up , with layoffs at their highest level since August and hunger still on the rise .
According to data from the Census Bureau , 22 million U.S. adults reported that their household struggled to afford enough food last month .
“ Whatever savings low-income people managed to build up with CARES Act relief will be gone well before any other help arrives , and another pandemic surge deeply complicates matters , ” David Dayen of The American Prospect warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still-extant relief supports expire at the end of the year… It ’ s disgusting to now have a man-made depression on top of the pandemic-made one.
” With a comprehensive relief package in doubt in large part due to his own obstruction , McConnell on Tuesday held a procedural vote on a plan to extend an additional $ 260 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program .
Dismissing the vote as a political stunt , most Senate Democrats voted to block the legislation .
“ The bill that Mitch McConnell put on the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses , minority-owned businesses , restaurants , doctors and nurses , and public health experts , ” Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
tweeted late Tuesday .
“ That ’ s why Senate Democrats voted no.
” Kyle Herrig , president of watchdog group Accountable.US , said in a statement that “ the American people need help and need it now.
” “ Only voting to extend a program that failed the very people it was intended to help without fixing any of the flaws that allowed it to fail is @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Mitch McConnell has privately been urging the Trump White House not to strike a COVID relief deal prior to the election.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues Tuesday that he has privately been urging the Trump White House not to strike a coronavirus relief deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the November 3 election, warning that an agreement could interfere with his chamber’s plan to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court early next week.
McConnell’s remarks, first reported by the Washington Post, came during a closed-door Senate GOP lunch just ahead of a Tuesday evening deadline for a relief deal set by Pelosi and agreed to by the Trump administration. While the deadline came and went without a deal, the House Speaker told Democratic lawmakers late Tuesday that the two sides “have been making some progress” and continued to voice optimism that “we can reach an agreement before the election.”
But with the election less than two weeks away, the window to hash out the details of the legislative package — which currently includes a desperately needed boost in unemployment benefits, another round of stimulus checks, and aid to state and local governments — and push it through both chambers of Congress is shrinking rapidly. Pelosi acknowledged that reality on Tuesday, telling reporters that legislation would have to be written by the end of this week for it to have any chance of reaching President Donald Trump’s desk before Election Day.
Even if the White House and Pelosi come to an agreement, it remains unclear whether enough GOP senators would be willing to vote for a big spending package, despite the catastrophic economic consequences of blocking additional relief. Assuming a united Democratic caucus, any legislation would need at least 13 Republican votes to clear the Senate.
While McConnell’s stated excuse for standing in the way of relief is his commitment to confirming Barrett as quickly as possible, that justification may be intended to obscure the fact that many Senate Republicans are simply opposed to additional coronavirus aid, whether or not the package would disrupt the right-wing judge’s path to the Supreme Court. Others have warned in recent days that in preparation for a potential Trump loss next month, McConnell is laying the groundwork to force crippling austerity under a Biden administration.
“Let’s be very clear about this: Mitch McConnell and Republicans are continuing to block essential relief to Americans across our country,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “If Trump wants to ‘go big or go home,’ he better see if he can control his own party.”
Mitch McConnell is rushing to steal a Supreme Court seat before the election. Senate Republicans would rather help him do it than help millions of Americans. We will #votethemallout this year. Go to https://t.co/pDaqN0is7w to volunteer. https://t.co/9jAVKQqLvP — Swing Left (@swingleft) October 20, 2020
The wrangling on Capitol Hill comes amid a backdrop of deepening misery for tens of millions of Americans as the coronavirus continues to spread and the economic collapse brought on by the pandemic — as well as lawmakers’ refusal to take sufficient action in response — shows no sign of letting up, with layoffs at their highest level since August and hunger still on the rise.
According to data from the Census Bureau, 22 million U.S. adults reported that their household struggled to afford enough food last month.
“Whatever savings low-income people managed to build up with CARES Act relief will be gone well before any other help arrives, and another pandemic surge deeply complicates matters,” David Dayen of The American Prospect warned Tuesday. “Many of the few still-extant relief supports expire at the end of the year… It’s disgusting to now have a man-made depression on top of the pandemic-made one.”
With a comprehensive relief package in doubt in large part due to his own obstruction, McConnell on Tuesday held a procedural vote on a plan to extend an additional $260 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program.
Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says his COVID relief bill does not include another round of stimulus checks for Americans. pic.twitter.com/Bt4YHdCuOn — The Recount (@therecount) October 20, 2020
Dismissing the vote as a political stunt, most Senate Democrats voted to block the legislation.
“The bill that Mitch McConnell put on the floor today leaves behind our struggling families, small businesses, minority-owned businesses, restaurants, doctors and nurses, and public health experts,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted late Tuesday. “That’s why Senate Democrats voted no.”
Kyle Herrig, president of watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement that “the American people need help and need it now.”
“Only voting to extend a program that failed the very people it was intended to help without fixing any of the flaws that allowed it to fail is completely nonsensical,” Herrig added.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-21--Trump Abruptly Ends “60 Minutes” Interview Tweeting It Was “FAKE and BIASED”

Apparently upset over the line of questioning he was receiving from CBS News ’ s Lesley Stahl , President Donald Trump abruptly ended an interview on Tuesday with the veteran journalist that was set to air on “ 60 Minutes ” over the weekend .
Stahl was interviewing both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for a special pre-election episode of the program .
The show is also set to feature separate interviews for Democratic nominees for president and vice president , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , respectively .
Trump , who had sat with Stahl for just over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to finish his interview after a short break .
He also refused to film a “ walk and talk ” scene for the program .
According to one source familiar with what transpired , the president had been visibly upset with the questions Stahl had asked him during the interview .
A second source described Trump ’ s reaction in more vivid detail , calling him “ pissed ” at what Stahl had asked him during the segment .
After prematurely ending the interview , Trump shared footage of Stahl on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing a mask while speaking to the program ’ s producers at the White House , suggesting that Stahl was being hypocritical when she criticized the president over his own resistance to using a mask .
“ Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me , ” Trump tweeted out .
“ Much more to come.
” The video shown is taken out of context , according to those who were there .
In fact , the footage that Trump shared was filmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred only minutes after it was announced the president was ending the interview .
Stahl had also been tested for coronavirus prior to her arrival at the White House , and had worn a mask at all other times while on the grounds , according to those who saw her there .
“ This image is from immediately following the interview with the CBS team , who had all been tested .
Lesley had a mask on leading into the interviews , as appropriate , ” a source familiar with the footage explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more footage from his interactions with Stahl , purportedly to further embarrass her .
“ I am pleased to inform you that , for the sake of accuracy in reporting , I am considering posting my interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes , PRIOR TO AIRTIME !
” Trump wrote in another Twitter post .
“ This will be done so that everybody can get a glimpse of what a FAKE and BIASED interview is all about.
” If Trump made good on that threat , he would be violating an agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization to film some footage “ for archival purposes only , ” according to a CBS spokesperson .
Others within the company suggested that Trump ’ s behavior had more to do with his dislike of the questions he was being asked rather than any unfair treatment Stahl supposedly meted out .
“ I ’ m guessing from this tweet that Stahl asked really tough questions , like she did in her last interview , which was one of the best with Trump to date , ” CBS News White House correspondent Kathryn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Stahl is not unique , as Trump has displayed similar behavior in his dealings with other reporters and news organizations .
The fact that it comes less than two weeks before Election Day 2020 ( although a sizable portion of the U.S. voting population has already cast a ballot ) is likely concerning for members of the president ’ s reelection campaign team , who have tried , often unsuccessfully , to steer him in a different direction .
Anticipating that the final debate between Trump and Biden , set to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last chance for the president to make a good impression with voters , several members of his campaign have told him he needs to appear more likable to voters if he ’ s to have a shot at winning reelection .
“ All Trump has to do is give people permission to vote for him , ” one adviser said of Trump and his strategy in the upcoming debate .
However , in the last couple of days , Trump has gone out of his way to criticize Kristen Welker , the NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderating the debate , and expressed his misgivings about her professionalism and her ability to do the job .
In a tweet this past weekend , Trump attacked Welker ’ s character , saying , “ She ’ s always been terrible & unfair , just like most of the Fake News reporters.
” However , Trump ’ s mistrust of Welker is apparently not shared by others in his campaign team , as one of them has gone on record to describe Welker as “ a journalist who is very fair in @ @ @ @

Trump also tweeted a video of host Lesley Stahl not wearing a mask, but sources say it was taken out of context.
Apparently upset over the line of questioning he was receiving from CBS News’s Lesley Stahl, President Donald Trump abruptly ended an interview on Tuesday with the veteran journalist that was set to air on “60 Minutes” over the weekend.
Stahl was interviewing both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for a special pre-election episode of the program. The show is also set to feature separate interviews for Democratic nominees for president and vice president, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, respectively.
Trump, who had sat with Stahl for just over 40 minutes for the segment, refused to return to finish his interview after a short break. He also refused to film a “walk and talk” scene for the program.
According to one source familiar with what transpired, the president had been visibly upset with the questions Stahl had asked him during the interview. A second source described Trump’s reaction in more vivid detail, calling him “pissed” at what Stahl had asked him during the segment.
After prematurely ending the interview, Trump shared footage of Stahl on social media, which showed her not wearing a mask while speaking to the program’s producers at the White House, suggesting that Stahl was being hypocritical when she criticized the president over his own resistance to using a mask.
“Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me,” Trump tweeted out. “Much more to come.”
Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes not wearing a mask in the White House after her interview with me. Much more to come. pic.twitter.com/0plZG6a4fH — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2020
The video shown is taken out of context, according to those who were there. In fact, the footage that Trump shared was filmed by White House staff, and had occurred only minutes after it was announced the president was ending the interview. Stahl had also been tested for coronavirus prior to her arrival at the White House, and had worn a mask at all other times while on the grounds, according to those who saw her there.
“This image is from immediately following the interview with the CBS team, who had all been tested. Lesley had a mask on leading into the interviews, as appropriate,” a source familiar with the footage explained.
Later, Trump threatened to share more footage from his interactions with Stahl, purportedly to further embarrass her.
“I am pleased to inform you that, for the sake of accuracy in reporting, I am considering posting my interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes, PRIOR TO AIRTIME!” Trump wrote in another Twitter post. “This will be done so that everybody can get a glimpse of what a FAKE and BIASED interview is all about.”
If Trump made good on that threat, he would be violating an agreement the White House had made with the organization to film some footage “for archival purposes only,” according to a CBS spokesperson.
Others within the company suggested that Trump’s behavior had more to do with his dislike of the questions he was being asked rather than any unfair treatment Stahl supposedly meted out.
“I’m guessing from this tweet that Stahl asked really tough questions, like she did in her last interview, which was one of the best with Trump to date,” CBS News White House correspondent Kathryn Watson said.
The friction between Trump and Stahl is not unique, as Trump has displayed similar behavior in his dealings with other reporters and news organizations. The fact that it comes less than two weeks before Election Day 2020 (although a sizable portion of the U.S. voting population has already cast a ballot) is likely concerning for members of the president’s reelection campaign team, who have tried, often unsuccessfully, to steer him in a different direction.
Anticipating that the final debate between Trump and Biden, set to happen on Thursday night, will be the last chance for the president to make a good impression with voters, several members of his campaign have told him he needs to appear more likable to voters if he’s to have a shot at winning reelection.
“All Trump has to do is give people permission to vote for him,” one adviser said of Trump and his strategy in the upcoming debate.
However, in the last couple of days, Trump has gone out of his way to criticize Kristen Welker, the NBC News White House correspondent who will be moderating the debate, and expressed his misgivings about her professionalism and her ability to do the job.
In a tweet this past weekend, Trump attacked Welker’s character, saying, “She’s always been terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters.”
However, Trump’s mistrust of Welker is apparently not shared by others in his campaign team, as one of them has gone on record to describe Welker as “a journalist who is very fair in her approach.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.