The field of current candidates from both parties for U.S. president does not inspire much confidence. There is no requisite experience model for the USAs CEO, but the current crop seems painfully thin in foreign affairs and extremely partisan in domestic affairs. While I cannot help but hold admiration for McCain and Giuliani, my reasons have little to do with their fitness for the White House, but Ill stop there, because this publication is not the place for axe-grinding or for politics per se.

So, in the present magazine context, I note that two candidates have targeted aspects of insurance. Hillary Clinton has fed the health care debate for some years, although her success was fleeting at best. More interesting, candidate Barack Obama has come out hard against long-term care abuses. He seems serious. And he has a point, if his facts are correct. His opinion is based on a New York Times series, and he has penned a letter to the head of the Government Accountability Office calling for an investigation into long-term care following the Times report. He noted that a high number of claims were being denied, and practices that make it difficult " if not impossible " for policyholders to get paid.

Obama wrote, in part:

Long-term care is a problem of national significance. As the baby boomers age, policy-makers are struggling to design a long-term care system that meets the needs of Americans with disabilities. While progress has been made, the long-term care system is heavily biased towards institutional care, and the quality of care is often poor. Moreover, nursing home and home care are very expensive, and Medicare coverage for both is limited. As a result, catastrophic out-of-pocket expenses for nursing home and home care by Americas older people are routine, forcing many to rely on Medicaid to finance the care they need.

I have a number of serious concerns about the long-term care insurance market and its ability to fulfill its promise to its policyholders. First, I am concerned about the possible arbitrary denial of insurance benefits to seniors at their time of need. Second, I am concerned that some insurers may be enticing individuals to buy policies by offering law premiums, and then sharply increasing premiums if lapse rates are not as high as assumed in the premium calculations. Third, a substantial percentage of policies do not offer inflation adjustments, resulting in a significant erosion of purchasing power in later years. Even worse, some companies offer inflation coverage, which allows policyholders to purchase additional coverage at a later date, but at the price charged older purchasers. Premiums increase dramatically by age, and individuals who elect to buy coverage later may not realize that such coverage will be extremely expensive, which may be financially infeasible.

Given the role of the federal government in long-term care financing, I request that GAO investigate these allegations and the adequacy of state and federal regulation. Specifically, I request that GAO review the practices of these insurers in order to assess the following:

Rate of denial of claims, and as feasible, the extent to which denials were justifiable;

Type of policies purchased, including the percentage of policies that do adjust and do not adjust for inflation and those that allow for purchase of additional coverage at a later date;

Estimated loss of purchasing power for those individuals that have policies without inflation adjustment provisions;

Frequency and amount of premium increases in already purchased policies, average lapse rates of policyholders, and the correlation between premium increases and lapse rates;

Extent to which long-term care policies are marketed to individuals that would likely qualify for Medicaid or may not have substantial assets to protect;

What, if any, additional federal regulation is needed.

The senators argument should reverberate whether or not he advances into candidacy.