The no-fault PIP auto insurance system was created in the 1970s with noble intentions: Resolving crash claims in a timely manner, regardless of who’s at fault. The concept still works to a degree. But the unintended consequence has been the large growth of fraud schemes.
Few policymakers thought PIP would become a cash cow for scammers when the system was enacted in Florida, New York, Michigan and other states. But adaptive fraudsters quickly learned the loopholes to exploit the system to steal hundreds of millions of insurance dollars or more in false crash-related claims.
Florida, New York and Michigan have tried to reform PIP and strengthen the anti-fraud provisions in the last few years. Policymakers in those states believe no-fault still is viable. Yet there are rumblings in Florida about repealing PIP and installing a system similar to Colorado’s after that state repealed no-fault in 2004. Rampant no-fault fraud is the main factor driving calls for repeal in Florida, most recently by the editorial writers of the Palm Beach Post.
Who does repeal benefit and harm the most?
PIP clearly helps low-income drivers, especially those who cannot afford private health insurance. Their auto crash injuries are quickly taken care of under PIP. What would happen if PIP is repealed?
One of the intents of the Affordable Care Act is to expand the availability of health insurance to all — especially low-income Americans. Much of this would be achieved by expanding Medicaid eligibility, which lets states insure more poor residents.
But not every state expanded Medicaid, including Florida. Without expansion, no-fault repeal could leave the working poor — those not eligible for existing Medicaid coverage — with few options for affordable medical treatment. Yes, they would be compensated for their injuries if the other driver is at fault, but in situations where fault may be in question, the wait can be long, causing lapses in treating injuries.
The Coalition has no position on whether states should repeal PIP. But policymakers considering such a tumultuous change, especially in Florida, first should remember why their state enacted no-fault in the first place. Without no-fault, they also may have figure out how assist more lower-income residents.
If expanding Medicaid is the tradeoff for dumping no-fault, then perhaps those who advocate repeal ought to lobby the governor in Florida to expand Medicaid.
About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.