Last week, life and property insurance associations agreed to accept digital COVID-19 certificates for insurance claims without requiring a written diagnosis from a medical professional. The decision not only ended a days-long standoff with the Financial Supervisory Commission, but should also further ease the burden on medical staff, who have been busy with an increasing number of people undergoing polymerase chain reaction tests amid the latest outbreak.
Prior to last week, insurance companies had objected to the commission’s suggestion that policyholders use digital certificates for insurance claims if they become infected or are quarantined. They voiced concerns that the practice could be susceptible to fraud, as digital certificates lack detailed information on patients, while information provided by policyholders, rather than doctors, is difficult to authenticate. To address these concerns, the government updated the digital certificate system to include national ID numbers and a QR code with which insurers could examine policyholders’ information.
Hospital staff are already stretched thin — issuing diagnoses for insurance purposes only adds to their pressure and is a waste of scarce resources, as there are many non-COVID-19 patients who need to be taken care of. The change of tack by insurers makes life easier for policyholders and hospitals, and ensures policyholders’ rights.
However, the associations remain critical of paying compensation to policyholders who test positive for COVID-19 in rapid antigen tests, even though the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) treats certain groups of people who test positive in a rapid test as confirmed cases. Insurers face growing financial stress due to high payouts to COVID-19 policyholders amid a surge in domestic infections, while the accuracy of rapid test results is still up for debate. By some estimates, insurers are expected to dole out NT$30 billion to NT$90 billion (US$1.01 billion to US$3.02 billion) during the latest outbreak.
The commission has estimated that some insurers might be compelled to increase capital in light of a decline in their capital adequacy if the number of local COVID-19 cases surpasses 3 million as forecast by the CECC.
A move by insurers to cancel policies or refuse policyholders’ claims due to rising financial pressure could have huge social implications, including potential legal action by policyholders and damage to insurers’ credibility.
The furor over COVID-19 insurance policies carries a painful lesson for insurers. The products provided financial support to people with COVID-19 and families facing economic difficulties in the past two years. However, as COVID-19 has become a flu-like illness, and the government has shifted its policy to coexisting with the virus, insurers failed to adjust their products in a timely manner, resulting in many policyholders pushing their luck to purchase more such products. In theory, insurance policies help people cover losses should something unexpected happen, but COVID-19 insurance products have started to look like lottery tickets to some people.
The commission has required insurers to fulfill their obligation to COVID-19 insurance policyholders and reminded them of the importance of the public’s trust in financial institutes, which, if lost, takes many years to regain.
At the same time, financial authorities must closely monitor the effects of paying compensation on insurers’ financial strength to avoid any adverse impact on the overall financial system. Other government agencies should also provide assistance to insurers. For example, the Ministry of Health and Welfare could adjust COVID-19’s classification, and exclude asymptomatic and mild cases from the notifiable communicable diseases category, which would help insurers to a certain extent.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS