When is this going to be on the ballot?

It will be on the ballot for the November 8th election.

What does a YES vote on this question mean?

A YES vote on this question means that dental insurance companies would have to STOP WASTING money and would be required to REDIRECT THOSE WASTED FUNDS into actual patient care.

Instead of spending only 60% on patient care (as their own data shows they do), they would be required to EITHER spend at least 83 cents of every premium dollar on delivering care to patients. OR REFUND premiums paid back to patients, until patients get an 83% value for their premium dollars.

This is a VALUE-GUARANTEE for patients!

A “value guarantee” is what so called “not for profit” companies (that pays no taxes) should provide

What if I vote NO?

If you vote NO, your dental insurance company will continue to be exempt from standard healthcare protection laws, and are FREE TO WASTE money.

For example, “Dental of Massachusetts” most recent annual “not for profit” tax form shows that they shifted $383 Million dollars of corporate waste into Executive Compensations, Commissions, Payments to Affiliates, and gifts to their mother company.

If you vote no, you enable Corporate “Non-Profit” Greed over Patient Need.

If I get insurance from work, will this make a difference for me?

Yes!  If this Ballot wins, all insured members will get BETTER VALUE! 

This means everyone with dental insurance will get MORE COVERAGE FOR THE SAME COST that they currently spend (or get refunds). 

If this ballot question wins, will dental insurance costs rise?

No!  We expect dental insurance premiums to either STAY THE SAME or DECREASE.  

The funds that will support increased patient care will come from removing corporate waste!

The simple math is this:  This is an 83% VALUE-GUARANTEE for patients (instead of the 60% currently provided by dental insurance companies).

But we know dental insurance companies will try to confuse citizens into not supporting the Dental Ballot by suggesting that premiums will increase. 

Don’t be fooled by these deceptive CEO’s!

How many Dental Insurance Companies and CEO's are there?

Delta Dental, for example, has 30 companies in the United States, each with its own CEO!

In Massachusetts “Delta Dental of Massachusetts” has its own CEO.

In California “Delta Dental of California” also has its own CEO.

“Delta Dental of Massachusetts” and “Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts” are the primary dental insurers in Massachusetts.  Both are “not for profit” companies that waste patient funds. 

How can a "not for profit" waste so much money?

Not for profit companies merely need to spend their money and show “no profit.” 

But if they spend the money by over-paying themselves,  that is NOT FAIR (especially in Health Care). 

I work in a dental office. Will this affect my work?

Yes! Instead of seeing patients take loans for their care, have to fight for years with insurance companies for care they paid for out of pocket, or often neglect themselves because they could not afford the care, this ballot question will enable patients to get the care they are entitled to.

Insured patients should not have to fight to be healthy. That is what insurance is for!

Where can I find the actual ballot question to read it for myself?

You can find a PDF of the language here. The official title is: An Act to Implement Medical Loss Ratios for Dental Benefit Plans.

Where do I need to go to vote on this?

You vote as you always do, at your regular polling place. For more information on polling locations, go to wheredoivotema.com.

Will the amount I pay for insurance increase?

The proposed law would require carriers to file group product base rates and any changes to group rating factors that are to be effective on January 1 of each year on or before July 1 of the preceding year. The Commissioner would be required to disapprove any proposed changes to base rates that are excessive, inadequate, or unreasonable in relation to the benefits charged. The Commissioner would also be required to disapprove any change to group rating factors that is discriminatory or not actuarially sound.