Google Search

Search Result

Kamis, 23 April 2009

health Insurance

The term health insurance is generally used to describe a form of insurance that pays for medical expenses. It is sometimes used more broadly to include insurance covering disability or long-term nursing or custodial care needs. It may be provided through a government-sponsored social insurance program, or from private insurance companies. It may be purchased on a group basis (e.g., by a firm to cover its employees) or purchased by individual consumers. In each case, the covered groups or individuals pay premiums or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected healthcare expenses. Similar benefits paying for medical expenses may also be provided through social welfare programs funded by the government.

By estimating the overall risk of healthcare expenses, a routine finance structure (such as a monthly premium or annual tax) can be developed, ensuring that money is available to pay for the healthcare benefits specified in the insurance agreement. The benefit is administered by a central organization such as a government agency, private business, or not-for-profit entity. [1]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History and evolution

The concept of health insurance was proposed in 1694 by Hugh the Elder Chamberlen from the Peter Chamberlen family. In the late 19th century, "accident insurance" began to be available, which operated much like modern disability insurance.[2].This payment model continued until the start of the 20th century in some jurisdictions (like California), where all laws regulating health insurance actually referred to disability insurance.[3]

Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the US by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. While there were earlier experiments, the origins of sickness coverage in the US effectively date from 1890. The first employer-sponsored group disability policy was issued in 1911.[4]

Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case.

Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations.[4] The predecessors of today's Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) originated beginning in 1929, through the 1930s and on during World War II.[5][6]

[edit] How it works

A health insurance policy is a contract between an insurance company and an individual or his sponsor (e.g. an employer). The contract can be renewable annually or monthly. The type and amount of health care costs that will be covered by the health insurance company are specified in advance, in the member contract or "Evidence of Coverage" booklet. The individual insurered person's obligations may take several forms[7]:

  • Premium: The amount the policy-holder or his sponsor (e.g. an employer) pays to the health plan each month to purchase health coverage.
  • Deductible: The amount that the insured must pay out-of-pocket before the health insurer pays its share. For example, a policy-holder might have to pay a $500 deductible per year, before any of their health care is covered by the health insurer. It may take several doctor's visits or prescription refills before the insured person reaches the deductible and the insurance company starts to pay for care.
  • Copayment: The amount that the insured person must pay out of pocket before the health insurer pays for a particular visit or service. For example, an insured person might pay a $45 copayment for a doctor's visit, or to obtain a prescription. A copayment must be paid each time a particular service is obtained.
  • Coinsurance: Instead of, or in addition to, paying a fixed amount up front (a copayment), the co-insurance is a percentage of the total cost that insured person may also pay. For example, the member might have to pay 20% of the cost of a surgery over and above a co-payment, while the insurance company pays the other 80%. If there is an upper limit on coinsurance, the policy-holder could end up owing very little, or a great deal, depending on the actual costs of the services they obtain.
  • Exclusions: Not all services are covered. The insured person is generally expected to pay the full cost of non-covered services out of their own pocket.
  • Coverage limits: Some health insurance policies only pay for health care up to a certain dollar amount. The insured person may be expected to pay any charges in excess of the health plan's maximum payment for a specific service. In addition, some insurance company schemes have annual or lifetime coverage maximums. In these cases, the health plan will stop payment when they reach the benefit maximum, and the policy-holder must pay all remaining costs.
  • Out-of-pocket maximums: Similar to coverage limits, except that in this case, the insured person's payment obligation ends when they reach the out-of-pocket maximum, and the health company pays all further covered costs. Out-of-pocket maximums can be limited to a specific benefit category (such as prescription drugs) or can apply to all coverage provided during a specific benefit year.
  • Capitation: An amount paid by an insurer to a health care provider, for which the provider agrees to treat all members of the insurer.
  • In-Network Provider: (U.S. term) A health care provider on a list of providers preselected by the insurer. The insurer will offer discounted coinsurance or copayments, or additional benefits, to a plan member to see an in-network provider. Generally, providers in network are providers who have a contract with the insurer to accept rates further discounted from the "usual and customary" charges the insurer pays to out-of-network providers.
  • Prior Authorization: A certification or authorization that an insurer provides prior to medical service occurring. Obtaining an authorization means that the insurer is obligated to pay for the service, assume it matches what was authorized. Many smaller, routine services do not require authorization[8]
  • Explanation of Benefits: A document sent by an insurer to a patient explaining what was covered for a medical service, and how they arrived at the payment amount and patient responsibility amount[9]

Prescription drug plans are a form of insurance offered through some employer benefit plans in the US, where the patient pays a copayment and the prescription drug insurance part or all of the balance for drugs covered in the formulary of the plan.

Some, if not most, health care providers in the United States will agree to bill the insurance company if patients are willing to sign an agreement that they will be responsible for the amount that the insurance company doesn't pay. The insurance company pays out of network providers according to "reasonable and customary" charges, which may be less than the provider's usual fee. The provider may also have a separate contract with the insurer to accept what amounts to a discounted rate or capitation to the provider's standard charges. It generally costs the patient less to use an in-network provider.

[edit] Health plan vs. health insurance

Historically, HMOs tended to use the term "health plan", while commercial insurance companies used the term "health insurance". A health plan can also refer to a subscription-based medical care arrangement offered through HMOs, preferred provider organizations, or point of service plans. These plans are similar to pre-paid dental, pre-paid legal, and pre-paid vision plans. Pre-paid health plans typically pay for a fixed number of services (for instance, $300 in preventive care, a certain number of days of hospice care or care in a skilled nursing facility, a fixed number of home health visits, a fixed number of spinal manipulation charges, etc.) The services offered are usually at the discretion of a utilization review nurse who is often contracted through the managed care entity providing the subscription health plan. This determination may be made either prior to or after hospital admission (concurrent utilization review).

[edit] Comprehensive vs. scheduled

Comprehensive health insurance pays a percentage of the cost of hospital and physician charges after a deductible (usually applies to hospital charges) or a co-pay (usually applies to physician charges, but may apply to some hospital services) is met by the insured. These plans are generally expensive because of the high potential benefit payout — $1,000,000 to 5,000,000 is common — and because of the vast array of covered benefits.[10]

Scheduled health insurance plans are not meant to replace a traditional comprehensive health insurance plans and are more of a basic policy providing access to day-to-day health care such as going to the doctor or getting a prescription drug. In recent years, these plans have taken the name mini-med plans or association plans. These plans may provide benefits for hospitalization and surgical, but these benefits will be limited. Scheduled plans are not meant to be effective for catastrophic events. These plans cost much less than comprehensive health insurance. They generally pay limited benefits amounts directly to the service provider, and payments are based upon the plan's "schedule of benefits". Annual benefits maximums for a typical scheduled health insurance plan may range from $1,000 to $25,000.[11]

[edit] Inherent problems with multiple insurance funds and optional insurance

The basic concept of insurance is population solidarity. There are inherent risks in a population but the population absorbs the cost of risks to an individual by spreading the impact of incurred costs amongst the insured population. However, if the population is split into insured and uninsured groups, or into selectively groups (as with private insurance with pre-insurance selection either by the insurance company or the insured) the concept of population solidarity breaks down. Insurance systems must then typically deal with two inherent challenges: adverse selection and ex-post moral hazard.

Some national systems with compulsory insurance utilize systems such as risk equalization and community rating to overcome these inherent problems. Proponents of single-payer health care in the United States aim to provide the population of the country with health care from a single fund and thus avoid problems and costs associated with adverse selection, moral hazard, and private profiteering from insurance.

[edit] Adverse selection

Insurance companies use the term "adverse selection" to describe the tendency for only those who will benefit from insurance to buy it. Specifically when talking about health insurance, unhealthy people are more likely to purchase health insurance because they anticipate large medical bills. On the other side, people who consider themselves to be reasonably healthy may decide that medical insurance is an unnecessary expense; if they see the doctor once a year and it costs $250, that's much better than making monthly insurance payments of $40. (example figures).

The fundamental concept of insurance is that it balances costs across a large, random sample of individuals (see risk pool). For instance, an insurance company has a pool of 1000 randomly selected subscribers, each paying $100 per month. One person becomes very ill while the others stay healthy, allowing the insurance company to use the money paid by the healthy people to pay for the treatment costs of the sick person. However, when the pool is self-selecting rather than random, as is the case with individuals seeking to purchase health insurance directly, adverse selection is a greater concern.[12] A disproportionate share of health care spending is attributable to individuals with high health care costs. In the US the 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending in 1996. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending. These patterns were stable through the 1970s and 1980s, and some data suggest that they may have been typical of the mid-to-early 20th century as well.[13][14] A few individuals have extremely high medical expenses, in extreme cases totaling a half million dollars or more.[15] Adverse selection could leave an insurance company with primarily sick subscribers and no way to balance out the cost of their medical expenses with a large number of healthy subscribers.

Because of adverse selection, insurance companies employ medical underwriting, using a patient's medical history to screen out those whose pre-existing medical conditions pose too great a risk for the risk pool. Before buying health insurance, a person typically fills out a comprehensive medical history form that asks whether the person smokes, how much the person weighs, whether the person has been treated for any of a long list of diseases and so on. In general, those who present large financial burdens are denied coverage or charged high premiums to compensate.[16] One large US industry survey found that roughly 13 percent of applicants for comprehensive, individually purchased health insurance who went through the medical underwriting in 2004 were denied coverage. Declination rates increased significantly with age, rising from 5 percent for individuals 18 and under to just under a third for individuals aged 60 to 64.[17] Among those who were offered coverage, the study found that 76% received offers at standard premium rates, and 22% were offered higher rates.[18] On the other side, applicants can get discounts if they do not smoke and are healthy.[19]

[edit] Moral hazard

Moral hazard occurs when an insurer and a consumer enter into a contract under symmetric information, but one party takes action, not taken into account in the contract, which changes the value of the insurance. A common example of moral hazard is third-party payment—when the parties involved in making a decision are not responsible for bearing costs arising from the decision. An example is where doctors and insured patients agree to extra tests which may or may not be necessary. Doctors benefit by avoiding possible malpractice suits, and patients benefit by gaining increased certainty of their medical condition. The cost of these extra tests is borne by the insurance company, which may have had little say in the decision. Co-payments, deductibles, and less generous insurance for services with more elastic demand attempt to combat moral hazard, as they hold the consumer responsible.

[edit] Other factors affecting insurance prices

A recent study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers examining the drivers of rising health care costs in the US pointed to increased utilization created by increased consumer demand, new treatments, and more intensive diagnostic testing, as the most significant driver.[20] People in developed countries are living longer. The population of those countries is aging, and a larger group of senior citizens requires more intensive medical care than a young healthier population. Advances in medicine and medical technology can also increase the cost of medical treatment. Lifestyle-related factors can increase utilization and therefore insurance prices, such as: increases in obesity caused by insufficient exercise and unhealthy food choices; excessive alcohol use, smoking, and use of street drugs. Other factors noted by the PWC study included the movement to broader-access plans, higher-priced technologies, and cost-shifting from Medicaid and the uninsured to private payers.[20]

[edit] Comparison

The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently under-performs compared to the other countries.[21] One difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health insurance coverage.

[edit] Australia

The public health system is called Medicare. It ensures free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidised out-of-hospital medical treatment. It is funded by a 1.5% tax levy.

The private health system is funded by a number of private health insurance organisations. The largest of these is Medibank Private, which is government-owned, but operates as a government business enterprise under the same regulatory regime as all other registered private health funds. The Coalition Howard government had announced that Medibank would be privatised if it won the 2007 election, however they were defeated by the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd which had already pledged that it would remain in government ownership.

Some private health insurers are 'for profit' enterprises, and some are non-profit organizations such as HCF Health Insurance and GMHBA Health Insurance. Some have membership restricted to particular groups, but the majority have open membership.

Most aspects of private health insurance in Australia are regulated by the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.

The private health system in Australia operates on a "community rating" basis, whereby premiums do not vary solely because of a person's previous medical history, current state of health, or (generally speaking) their age (but see Lifetime Health Cover below). Balancing this are waiting periods, in particular for pre-existing conditions (usually referred to within the industry as PEA, which stands for "pre-existing ailment"). Funds are entitled to impose a waiting period of up to 12 months on benefits for any medical condition the signs and symptoms of which existed during the six months ending on the day the person first took out insurance. They are also entitled to impose a 12-month waiting period for benefits for treatment relating to an obstetric condition, and a 2-month waiting period for all other benefits when a person first takes out private insurance. Funds have the discretion to reduce or remove such waiting periods in individual cases. They are also free not to impose them to begin with, but this would place such a fund at risk of "adverse selection", attracting a disproportionate number of members from other funds, or from the pool of intending members who might otherwise have joined other funds. It would also attract people with existing medical conditions, who might not otherwise have taken out insurance at all because of the denial of benefits for 12 months due to the PEA Rule. The benefits paid out for these conditions would create pressure on premiums for all the fund's members, causing some to drop their membership, which would lead to further rises, and a vicious cycle would ensue.

There are a number of other matters about which funds are not permitted to discriminate between members in terms of premiums, benefits or membership - these include racial origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nature of employment, and leisure activities. Premiums for a fund's product that is sold in more than one state can vary from state to state, but not within the same state.

The Australian government has introduced a number of incentives to encourage adults to take out private hospital insurance. These include:

  • Lifetime Health Cover: If a person has not taken out private hospital cover by the 1st July after their 30th birthday, then when (and if) they do so after this time, their premiums must include a loading of 2% per annum. Thus, a person taking out private cover for the first time at age 40 will pay a 20 per cent loading. The loading continues for 10 years. The loading applies only to premiums for hospital cover, not to ancillary (extras) cover.
  • Medicare Levy Surcharge: People whose taxable income is greater than a specified amount (currently $70,000 for singles and $140,000 for couples) and who do not have an adequate level of private hospital cover must pay a 1% surcharge on top of the standard 1.5% Medicare Levy. The rationale is that if the people in this income group are forced to pay more money one way or another, most would choose to purchase hospital insurance with it, with the possibility of a benefit in the event that they need private hospital treatment - rather than pay it in the form of extra tax as well as having to meet their own private hospital costs.
    • The Australian government announced in May 2008 that it proposes to increase the thresholds, to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for families. These changes require legislative approval. A bill to change the law has been introduced but was not passed by the Senate.[22] A changed version was passed on 16 October 2008. There have been criticisms that the changes will cause many people to drop their private health insurance, causing a further burden on the public hospital system, and a rise in premiums for those who stay with the private system. Other commentators believe the effect will be minimal.[23]
  • Private Health Insurance Rebate: The government subsidises the premiums for all private health insurance cover, including hospital and ancillary (extras), by 30%, 35% or 40%.

[edit] Canada

Most health insurance in Canada is administered by each province, under the Canada Health Act, which requires all people to have free access to basic health services. Collectively, the public provincial health insurance systems in Canada are frequently referred to as Medicare. Private health insurance is allowed, but the provincial governments allow it only for services that the public health plans do not cover; for example, semi-private or private rooms in hospitals and prescription drug plans. Canadians are free to use private insurance for elective medical services such as laser vision correction surgery, cosmetic surgery, and other non-basic medical procedures. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[24] Private-sector services not paid for by the government account for nearly 30 percent of total health care spending.[25]

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Quebec ruled, in Chaoulli v. Quebec, that the province's prohibition on private insurance for health care already insured by the provincial plan could constitute an infringement of the right to life and security if there were long wait times for treatment as happened in this case. Certain other provinces have legislation which financially discourages but does not forbid private health insurance in areas covered by the public plans. The ruling has not changed the overall pattern of health insurance across Canada but has spurred on attempts to tackle the core issues of supply and demand and the impact of wait times.[26]

[edit] France

The French model of health insurance has been ranked by the World Health Organization as the best in the world, because it permits a high quality of care and nearly total patient freedom. The national system of health insurance was instituted in 1945, just after the end of the Second World War. It was a compromise between Gaullist and Communist representatives in the French parliament. The Conservative Gaullists were opposed to a state-run healthcare system, while the Communists were supportive of a complete nationalisation of health care along a British Beveridge model.

The resulting programme was profession-based : all people working were required to pay a portion of their income to a health insurance fund, which mutualised the risk of illness, and which reimbursed medical expenses at varying rates. Children and spouses of insured people were eligible for benefits, as well. Each fund was free to manage its own budget and reimburse medical expenses at the rate it saw fit.

The government has two responsibilities in this system.

  • The first government responsibility is the fixing of the rate at which medical expenses should be negotiated, and it does this in two ways: The Ministry of Health directly negotiates prices of medicine with the manufacturers, based on the average price of sale observed in neighboring countries. A board of doctors and experts decides if the medicine provides a valuable enough medical benefit to be reimbursed (note that most medicine is reimbursed, including homeopathy). In parallel, the government fixes the reimbursment rate for medical services : this means that a doctor is free to charge the fee that he wishes for a consultation or an examination, but the social security system will only reimburse it at a pre-set rate. These tariffs are set annually through negotiation with doctors' representative organisations.
  • The second government responsibility is oversight of the health-insurance funds, to ensure that they are correctly managing the sums they receive, and to ensure oversight of the public hospital network.

Today, this system is more-or-less intact. All citizens and legal foreign residents of France are covered by one of these mandatory programs, which continue to be funded by worker participation. However, since 1945, a number of major changes have been introduced. Firstly, the different health-care funds (there are five : General, Independent, Agricultural, Student, Public Servants) now all reimburse at the same rate. Secondly, since 2000, the government now provides health care to those who are not covered by a mandatory regime (those who have never worked and who are not students, meaning the very rich or the very poor). This regime, unlike the worker-financed ones, is financed via general taxation and reimburses at a higher rate than the profession-based system for those who cannot afford to make up the difference. Finally, to counter the rise in health-care costs, the government has installed two plans, (in 2004 and 2006), which require insured people to declare a referring doctor in order to be fully reimbursed for specalist visits, and which installed a mandatory co-pay of 1 € (about $1.45) for a doctor visit, 0,50 € (about 80 ¢) for each box of medicine prescribed, and a fee of 16-18 € (20-25 $) per day for hospital stays and for expensive procedures.

An important element of the French insurance system is solidarity : the more ill a person becomes, the less they pay. This means that for people with serious or chronic illnesses, the insurance system reimburses them 100 % of expenses, and waives their co-pay charges.

Finally, for fees that the mandatory system does not cover, there is a large range of private complementary insurance plans available. The market for these programs is very competitive, and often subsidised by the employer, which means that premiums are usually modest. 85% of French people benefit from complementary private health insurance.

[27][28]

[edit] Netherlands

In 2006, a new system of health insurance came into force in the Netherlands. This new system avoids the two pitfalls of adverse selection and moral hazard associated with traditional forms of health insurance by using a combination of regulation and an insurance equalization pool. Moral hazard is avoided by mandating that insurance companies provide at least one policy which meets a government set minimum standard level of coverage, and all adult residents are obliged by law to purchase this coverage from an insurance company of their choice. All insurance companies receive funds from the equalization pool to help cover the cost of this government-mandated coverage. This pool is run by a regulator which collects salary-based contributions from employers, which make up about 50% of all health care funding, and funding from the government to cover people who cannot afford health care, which makes up an additional 5%.

The remaining 45% of health care funding comes from insurance premiums paid by the public, for which companies compete on price, though the variation between the various competing insurers is only about 5%. However, insurance companies are free to sell additional policies to provide coverage beyond the national minimum. These policies do not receive funding from the equalization pool, but cover additional treatments, such as dental procedures and physiotherapy, which are not paid for by the mandatory policy.

Funding from the equalization pool is distributed to insurance companies for each person they insure under the required policy. However, high-risk individuals get more from the pool, and low-income persons and children under 18 have their insurance paid for entirely. Because of this, insurance companies no longer find insuring high risk individuals an unappealing proposition, avoiding the potential problem of adverse selection.

Insurance companies are not allowed to have co-payments, caps, or deductibles, or to deny coverage to any person applying for a policy, or to charge anything other than their nationally set and published standard premiums. Therefore, every person buying insurance will pay the same price as everyone else buying the same policy, and every person will get at least the minimum level of coverage.

[edit] United Kingdom

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a publicly funded healthcare system that provides coverage to everyone normally resident in the UK. It is not strictly an insurance system because (a) there are no premiums collected, (b) costs are not charged at the patient level and (c) costs are not pre-paid from a pool. However, it does achieve the main aim of insurance which is to spread financial risk arising from ill-health. The costs of running the NHS (est. £104 billion in 2007-8)[29] are met directly from general taxation. The NHS provides the majority of health care in the UK, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term health care, ophthalmology and dentistry.

Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used by less than 8% of the population, and generally as a top-up to NHS services. There are many treatments that the private sector does not provide. For example, health insurance on pregnancy is generally not covered or covered with restricting clauses.[30] One of the major insurers, BUPA, excludes many forms of treatment and care that most people will need during their lifetime or specialist care most of which are freely available from the NHS. These include:-

ageing, menopause and puberty; AIDS/HIV; allergies or allergic disorders; birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes; chronic conditions; complications from excluded or restricted conditions/ treatment; convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care ; cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment; deafness; dental/oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage, etc); dialysis; drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use† ; experimental drugs and treatment; eyesight; HRT and bone densitometry; learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems; overseas treatment and repatriation; physical aids and devices; pre-existing or special conditions; pregnancy and childbirth; screening and preventive treatment; sleep problems and disorders; speech disorders; temporary relief of symptoms[31] († = except in exceptional circumstances)

BUPA's competitors include, among others, AXA, Aviva, Groupama Healthcare and Pru Health.

Recently the private sector has been used to increase NHS capacity despite a large proportion of the British public opposing such involvement.[32]. According to the World Health Organization, government funding covered 86% of overall health care expenditures in the UK as of 2004, with private expenditures covering the remaining 14%.[33]

[edit] United States

The US market-based health care system relies heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance; some 60% obtain it through an employer, while about 9% purchase it directly. Various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).[34]

Public programs provide the primary source of coverage for most seniors and for low-income children and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. The primary public programs are Medicare, a federal social insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals, Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states but administered at the state level, which covers certain very low income children and their families, and SCHIP, also a federal-state partnership that serves certain children and families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private coverage. Other public programs include military health benefits provided through TRICARE and the Veterans Health Administration and benefits provided through the Indian Health Service. Some states have additional programs for low-income individuals.[35]

In 2006, there were 47 million people in the United States (16% of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.[34] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000.[34]

In 2004, US health insurers directly employed almost 470,000 people at an average salary of $61,409.[36] (As of the fourth quarter of 2007, the total US labor force stood at 153.6 million, of whom 146.3 million were employed. Employment related to all forms of insurance totaled 2.3 million.[37] Mean annual earnings for full-time civilian workers as of June 2006 were $41,231; median earnings were $33,634.)[38] The insurance industry also represents a significant lobbying group in the US. For 2008 insurance was the 8th among industries in political contributions to members of Congress, giving $28,654,121, of which 51% was given to Democrats and 49% to Republicans, with the top recipient of insurance industry contributions being Senator John McCain (R-AZ).[39] The leading contributor from the insurance industry — as measured by total political contributions — was AFLAC, Inc., which contributed $907,150 in 2007.[40].

Minggu, 12 April 2009

The Asbestos – Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma has become a household word to tens of thousands of U.S. citizens. It is a form of cancer associated with asbestos, and with the lawsuits that forced many asbestos companies into bankruptcy. Asbestos was an enormously popular material for construction products and insulation for industrial plants, commercial buildings and homes. By 1985 it was a proven carcinogen, after more than fifty years of suspicion from the medical community and denials from asbestos companies.

The Asbestos – Mesothelioma Link

AsbestosUnlike most cancer, mesothelioma is almost always caused by just one source: asbestos exposure. The National Cancer Institute says that up to 80% of all mesothelioma cases are caused by asbestos exposure. However additional causes of the disease are just guesses and include such exotic factors as exposure to a mineral in Turkey called Zeolite and previous infection with the Simian monkey virus. Exposure to radiation may make the development of mesothelioma more likely.

For most of the twentieth century, asbestos was heavily used in the manufacture of all types of insulation, flooring, ceiling tiles, pipe fittings, plaster, caulking, roofing, and other construction products. Any industrial facility or power plant (including naval engine rooms) that generated heat probably had pipes, tanks and other fixtures insulated with asbestos. Some sort of asbestos product was at virtually all construction job sites up to 1985 or so.

Asbestos is a fibrous material that when disturbed, emits fibers into the air which can be inhaled by any nearby worker: a miner, a construction worker, a ship’s crewman working around the ship’s pipes and boilers, plumbers, carpenters, auto mechanics, workers in the oil business, in power plants, in chemical plants – the list goes on. The list also includes family members of workers that brought home asbestos fibers on their clothing and shoes from the job site.

Types of Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is not just lung cancer. It begins in the lining of the chest or abdominal cavities and can impact the organs contained in or near those places: lungs, heart, reproductive organs. The mesothelium is a tissue lining for cavities in the upper body. In the pleural area, the area around the lungs, it is a double tissue with the inner portion (the visceral layer) lining the lungs themselves and the outer portion (the parietal layer) lining the chest wall.

There are three types of mesothelioma: as with the pleural area the disease can impact the lining around the heart and in the abdominal cavity. Mesothelioma is a condition of uncontrolled cell growth that causes the mesothelium layers to thicken and often results in fluid accumulating between the two layers. These cancer cells can be either malignant or benign.

Pleural Mesothelioma

Pleural mesothelioma impacts the lining of the chest cavity around the lungs. When both the inner and outer membrane layers (the mesothelium) thicken and retain fluid in the area between, pressure is put on the lungs and shortness of breath develops. Other symptoms include a persistent cough, chest pain, hoarseness and perhaps trouble swallowing. The more general symptoms for mesothelioma are fever, weight loss and fatigue, which explains why the initial appearance of mesothelioma symptoms are often misdiagnosed as pneumonia or some other common pulmonary problem.

Pleural mesothelioma is by far the most common form of the disease, accounting for about 75% of all cases. It is, however, a disease of the membranes surrounding the lungs. If the rogue cells are malignant and pass into the lungs, the lung cancer that results is secondary to mesothelioma. Nevertheless, lung cancer that develops as a result of mesothelioma is often referred to as asbestos lung cancer or mesothelioma lung cancer.

Pericardial Mesothelioma

Pericardial mesothelioma impacts the membrane that surrounds the heart. This form of the disease is the rarest: less that 10% mesothelioma diagnoses are for the pericardial variant. One of the issues with pericardial mesothelioma is that medical researchers are unsure how asbestos fibers get into the tissue around the heart. In the case of pleural mesothelioma they are inhaled. How they migrate to the pericardial area is something of a mystery. One theory holds that they break up into smaller pieces after inhalation and somehow are carried to the pericardial area in the bloodstream.

In any case, the impact of asbestos fibers on the pericardial mesothelium is the same as in the pleural area. They cause inflammation which eventually leads to the uncontrolled growth of cells – cancerous cells. As the membrane thickens, fluid buildup occurs and pressure is put on the heart. The symptoms can include an irregular heartbeat and little or no stamina, along with chest pain. Because these characteristics are also symptomatic of heart disease, the diagnosis for mesothelioma is often overlooked initially.

Peritoneal Mesothelioma

This form of the disease impacts the membrane that lines the abdominal cavity, the peritoneum. It is also unclear how this form of the disease develops. The theory for pericardial mesothelioma that tiny asbestos fibers travel through the bloodstream is also applicable for the peritoneal variety. It is also quite possible that asbestos fibers work their way to the abdominal wall through the digestive tract and that they are introduced to the body through eating or drinking.

Asbestos fibers travel through the air like dust and pollen. They could certainly find their way to consumable items on a jobsite. Regardless of the source, the impact of asbestos on the peritoneal membrane is the same. Over time they act as an irritant which results in prolonged inflammation, eventually leading to the development of uncontrolled cancerous cell growth.

Fifteen to twenty percent of all mesothelioma cases are peritoneal. The fact that it is more common than pericardial mesothelioma would suggest that the causal theory based on ingestion makes sense. Lung cancer can also be a secondary development of peritoneal mesothelioma; in addition one of the rare forms of peritoneal mesothelioma can impact the testicles. The membrane within the scrotum is an extension of the peritoneal mesothelium.

Symptoms usually begin with abdominal pain as the fluid buildup caused by the mesothelioma cells begins to impact the abdominal cavity. It can also be accompanied by shortness of breath and a cough, although these symptoms are less common. What peritoneal mesothelioma does share with other types of the disease is a lag of some months between manifestation of the symptoms and a diagnosis.

Years between Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is difficult to diagnose and there are a number of reasons for it. One is that the symptoms mimic those of much more common diseases. Another is that mesothelioma cancer itself does not result in tumor development; that occurs only after the disease has fully developed and metastasized into a nearby organ. But perhaps the most difficult factor is the reality that it takes years and often decades for those asbestos fibers to do their work.

In the case of pleural mesothelioma, the fibers are inhaled and slowly work their way through the lung wall into the mesothelium as the body tries to rid itself of this irritant. Once lodged in the membrane around the lungs, the fibers slowly create a situation where they trigger the development of malformed cancerous cells that begin the process of thickening the membranes which in turn begins the fluid accumulation process.

The result is a remarkably lengthy period of latency for the disease. By the time the symptoms appear – the shortness of breath, fatigue and fever – many years will have elapsed since the asbestos exposure. The patient may be a Navy veteran that spent four years on a ship three decades ago. The asbestos exposure will be long forgotten and the symptoms mirror indications of other more common diseases. The fact that mesothelioma is most often shrouded in a lengthy latency period means that it usually isn’t diagnosed until it has had time to fully develop as a malignant threat.

Developing Mesothelioma Treatment Options

Mesothelioma is not a form of cancer that lends itself to surgical resection. In addition, most diagnoses don’t occur until the disease is in its latter stages. For that reason medical researchers have focused their efforts on extending the period of patient survival after the diagnosis has been made.

These efforts generally focus on slowing or stopping the growth of the cancerous cells. There are a number of approaches to this concept. One chemotherapy drug called cisplatin that is used for mesothelioma treatment has at its core molecules of platinum, which has proven to damage the DNA in certain types of cancer cells, resulting in their inability to reproduce. This sort of targeted chemotherapy does less damage to surrounding healthy cells than some more general formulations of anti-cancer cell agents.

Another chemotherapy drug approved by the FDA for mesothelioma treatment is pemetrexed, a medication that targets enzymes vital to certain types of cancer cells. This is another successful approach to narrowing the focus of chemotherapy and limiting collateral damage; however some mesothelioma cancer cells have shown resistance to pemetrexed.

For that reason, mesothelioma clinical trials have recently been completed that utilize cisplatin and pemetrexed in combination. The result was a significant extension of survival time for many of the participants. Unfortunately, the extension was a period of months rather than years.

Early Diagnosis: the Key to Mesothelioma Survival

Practitioners working on mesothelioma cancer are faced with the difficult combination of a disease that is usually fully developed when diagnosed and that is a diffuse spread of cancer cells that are not gathered in the form of a tumor, often creating a situation where surgery isn’t a viable option. In addition, its initial symptoms are often readily assumed to be the result of some more common problem such as a pulmonary illness or heart problems.

In order to achieve some pattern of early diagnosis, people who know they have been exposed to asbestos must consult with their doctors and seek some preliminary tests to ensure that there are no signs of the disease. CT and MRI scans can today detect thickening of the mesothelium membrane in some cases. If diagnosis can be made before the physical symptoms appear, the doctor may have some chance of bringing growth of the cell mass to a halt before it is too late.

Mesothelioma in the Courts

The toxic nature of asbestos has been evident to some since the 1930s. By 1985 enough people had become sick from asbestos exposure that the relationship between asbestos and mesothelioma was incontrovertibly established. For years, asbestos companies and industrial giants that manufactured products using asbestos denied the health problems associated with it.

By the end of the 1990s the courts had ruled that people who suffered from an asbestos-related disease were entitled to liability compensation from asbestos companies who mined the material and corporations that used it to make consumer and construction products. The result has been several bankruptcies and the establishment of several trusts holding billions of dollars to compensate people who can prove personal damage or damage to a deceased family member as the result of asbestos exposure.

Asbestos is the Cause of Many Illnesses

While the lethal nature of mesothelioma cancer has drawn a lot of the attention given to asbestos toxicity, there are several other afflictions that can be attributed to the material. One of the most common and most harmful is asbestosis. This disease is the result of scarred lung tissue that has been damaged by asbestos fibers. It is a permanent, progressive, restrictive lung illness also known as pulmonary fibrosis. Asbestosis causes shortness of breath, reduced lung capacity and chest pain.

The most common affect of asbestos exposure is pleural plaques. These are smooth, raised strips of fibrous tissue that develop on the pleura. One third to one half of individuals with significant asbestos exposure will develop this condition. They are not pre-malignant and are not believed to lead to further health problems. They will calcify however, and show up on X-rays as an indication of asbestos exposure.

Asthma is also commonly associated with asbestos exposure. Asbestos fibers are a potent pulmonary irritant and are capable of creating the usual reactions to inhaled toxins along with the more serious asbestosis and the lethal development of mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma Treatment Research

The treatment of mesothelioma is usually palliative in nature. Mesothelioma cancer is not in the form of a tumor that can be removed. Only in the case of pleural mesothelioma is surgery a viable choice, and then only if the disease is still in its earlier stages. In this instance the surgeon will remove some or all of the pleural membranes, possibly with a portion of the chest wall and also possibly a lung.

Even if surgery is an option, usually it is combined with radiation therapy and chemotherapy. In recent years medical researchers have focused their efforts on extending the survival time for patients who have been diagnosed with advanced mesothelioma – by far the most common condition when diagnosis is completed.

The use of targeted chemotherapy is an example of how researchers are approaching mesothelioma today along with a number of other cancer types. Cells that can be programmed to attack or compromise cancer cells and then introduced into the afflicted area have become a common strategy for cancer treatment. Methods of targeting radiotherapy have also been introduced, in order to minimize the destruction of healthy cells adjacent to cancerous cells.

In general, researchers are looking for combinations of radiotherapy and chemotherapy that work best with certain types of mesothelioma cells (there are several) and in certain stages of the disease. Many choices for research are based on patients that have inoperable cases of the disease.

Doctors and Lawyers

Asbestos has affected the health of tens of thousands of people that we are aware of; there is a massive additional population of individuals who were never diagnosed or were exposed and died at a time when asbestos-related industries were in the throes of professional denial.

The courts have slowly come to the realization that this has been a national tragedy of sorts and that there is a large class of people who worked around asbestos, and their families that also suffered as a result, who are entitled to compensation. Asbestos companies have been forced to take financial responsibility to a degree uncommon in product liability law. Today there are trust funds established by these companies that hold billions of dollars to pay for claims against those companies for lives damaged or ruined by asbestos.

There are still many thousands of claims to be filed because of the fact that mesothelioma has such a long latency period. Workers who were exposed to asbestos products on the job site daily during the 1970s may only now be showing the symptoms of asbestos toxicity. If you or a family member may be one of those individuals, it is important to both your health and your financial well being to confirm any potential asbestos health problems with your doctor.

If your physician detects asbestos damage, an attorney with expertise in the field can obtain fiscal damages for you. If you’d like to discuss this possibility, fill out our simple form or give us a call and we’ll put you in touch with an experienced professional who can talk you through the details of your case and go over your options. There will be no financial obligation on your part; that will fall to the asbestos companies if yours is a viable case.

Kamis, 26 Februari 2009

Mortgage

A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in property (or the equivalent in law - a charge) to a lender as a security for a debt - usually a loan of money. While a mortgage in itself is not a debt, it is the lender's security for a debt. It is a transfer of an interest in land (or the equivalent) from the owner to the mortgage lender, on the condition that this interest will be returned to the owner when the terms of the mortgage have been satisfied or performed. In other words, the mortgage is a security for the loan that the lender makes to the borrower.

The term comes from the Old French "dead pledge," apparently meaning that the pledge ends (dies) either when the obligation is fulfilled or the property is taken through foreclosure.[1]

In most jurisdictions mortgages are strongly associated with loans secured on real estate rather than on other property (such as ships) and in some jurisdictions only land may be mortgaged. A mortgage is the standard method by which individuals and businesses can purchase real estate without the need to pay the full value immediately from their own resources. See mortgage loan for residential mortgage lending, and commercial mortgage for lending against commercial property.

The cost to the borrower is measured by the annual percentage rate (APR), which is an effective annual rate of interest and fees paid by the borrower.

In many countries, though not all (Bali, Indonesia is one exception[2]), it is normal for home purchases to be funded by a mortgage. Few individuals have enough savings or liquid funds to enable them to purchase property outright. In countries where the demand for home ownership is highest, strong domestic markets have developed, notably in Ireland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.


Participants and variant terminology

Legal systems in different countries, while having some concepts in common, employ different terminology. However, in general, a mortgage of property involves the following parties.

Mortgage lender

Mortgagee is a party to whom property is mortgaged, usually a lender. Mortgage provides security to the lender. Given the large sum of money involved in financing a property, a mortgage lender will usually want security for the loan that will provide a claim upon that security and will take precedence over other creditors. A mortgage accomplishes this security.

The lender loans the money and registers the mortgage with the title to the property. The borrower gives the lender the mortgage as security for the loan, receives the funds, makes the required payments and maintains possession of the property. The borrower has the right to have the mortgage discharged from the title once the debt is paid. If the mortgagor fails to repay the loan according to the conditions set forth by the lender, then the mortgagee reserves the right to foreclose on the property.

Borrower

Mortgagor is a party who mortgages property. A mortgagor owes the obligation secured by the mortgage. Generally, the debtor must meet the conditions of the underlying loan or other obligation and the conditions of the mortgage. Otherwise, the debtor usually runs the risk of foreclosure of the mortgage by the creditor to recover the debt. Typically the debtors will be the individual home-owners, landlords or businesses who are purchasing their property by way of a loan.

Most buyers of real property would have difficulty saving enough money to make an outright purchase of real estate. The use of debt increases a buyer's ability to buy through a combination of down payment and debt. As a result a real estate transaction seldom occurs without buyers relying on borrowed funds.

Borrowing for investment purposes

Aside from the absence of large amount of available money, there are several reasons why an investor (including a buyer of real estate) might borrow funds. Some of these include:

  • To diversify investments and reduce overall risk by using only part of the available funds for any one investment. However the mortgage loan enables him to purchase more assets than he would otherwise been able to, and therefore in general increases investment risk rather than reducing it.
  • To invest the borrowed funds at a higher rate of interest (yield) than the borrowing rate; for example, a sum is borrowed at an annual interest rate of 7% per year and used to invest in a project that returns 10% per year. This is likely to be speculative and there is usually a possibility that the project may turn out to return less than 7% per year or to lose money.
  • To free up equity for other purposes; for example, a commercial enterprise may prefer to use funds to purchase inventory or equipment instead of investing only in land and buildings.
  • To obtain a tax benefit. In some countries (such as Canada), mortgage interest is not tax deductible, but loans made for investment purposes are.

Other participants

Because of the complicated legal exchange, or conveyance, of the property, one or both of the main participants are likely to require legal representation. The terminology varies with legal jurisdiction; see lawyer, solicitor and conveyancer.

Because of the complex nature of many markets the debtor may approach a mortgage broker or financial adviser to help them source an appropriate creditor, typically by finding the most competitive loan.

The debt is, in civil law jurisdictions, referred to as hypothecation, which may make use of the services of a hypothecary to assist in the hypothecation.

Default on divided property

When a tract of land is purchased with a mortgage and then split up and sold, the "inverse order of alienation rule" applies to decide parties liable for the unpaid debt.

When a mortgaged tract of land is split up and sold, upon default, the mortgagee first forecloses on lands still owned by the mortgagor and proceeds against other owners in an 'inverse order' in which they were sold. For example, A acquires a 3-acre (12,000 m2) lot by mortgage then splits up the lot into three 1-acre (4,000 m2) lots (A, B, and C), and sells lot B to X, and then lot C to Y, retaining lot A for himself. Upon default, the mortgagee proceeds against lot A first, the mortgagor. If foreclosure or repossession of lot A does not fully satisfy the debt, the mortgagee proceeds against lot C, then lot B. The rationale is that the first purchaser should have more equity and subsequent purchasers receive a diluted share.

Legal aspects

Mortgages may be legal or equitable. Furthermore, a mortgage may take one of a number of different legal structures, the availability of which will depend on the jurisdiction under which the mortgage is made. Common law jurisdictions have evolved two main forms of mortgage: the mortgage by demise and the mortgage by legal charge.

Mortgage by demise

In a mortgage by demise, the mortgagee (the lender) becomes the owner of the mortgaged property until the loan is repaid or other mortgage obligation fulfilled in full, a process known as "redemption". This kind of mortgage takes the form of a conveyance of the property to the creditor, with a condition that the property will be returned on redemption.

Mortgages by demise were the original form of mortgage, and continue to be used in many jurisdictions, and in a small minority of states in the United States. Many other common law jurisdictions have either abolished or minimised the use of the mortgage by demise. For example, in England and Wales this type of mortgage is no longer available, by virtue of the Land Registration Act 2002.

Mortgage by legal charge

In a mortgage by legal charge or technically "a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage",[3] the debtor remains the legal owner of the property, but the creditor gains sufficient rights over it to enable them to enforce their security, such as a right to take possession of the property or sell it.

To protect the lender, a mortgage by legal charge is usually recorded in a public register. Since mortgage debt is often the largest debt owed by the debtor, banks and other mortgage lenders run title searches of the real property to make certain that there are no mortgages already registered on the debtor's property which might have higher priority. Tax liens, in some cases, will come ahead of mortgages. For this reason, if a borrower has delinquent property taxes, the bank will often pay them to prevent the lienholder from foreclosing and wiping out the mortgage.

This type of mortgage is most common in the United States and, since the Law of Property Act 1925,[3] it has been the usual form of mortgage in England and Wales (it is now the only form – see above).

In Scotland, the mortgage by legal charge is also known as Standard Security.[4]

In Pakistan, the mortgage by legal charge is most common way used by banks to secure the financing.[citation needed] It is also known as registered mortgage. After registration of legal charge, the bank's lien is recorded in the land register stating that the property is under mortgage and cannot be sold without obtaining an NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the bank.

Equitable mortgage

See also: Security interest#Types of security

In an equitable mortgage the lender is secured by taking possession of all the original title documents of the property and by borrower's signing a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (MODTD). This document is an undertaking by the borrower that he/she has deposited the title documents with the bank with his own wish and will, in order to secure the financing obtained from the bank.

History

At common law, a mortgage was a conveyance of land that on its face was absolute and conveyed a fee simple estate, but which was in fact conditional, and would be of no effect if certain conditions were met – usually, but not necessarily, the repayment of a debt to the original landowner. Hence the word "mortgage" (a legal term in French meaning "dead pledge"). The debt was absolute in form, and unlike a "live pledge" was not conditionally dependent on its repayment solely from raising and selling crops or livestock or simply giving the crops and livestock raised on the mortgaged land. The mortgage debt remained in effect whether or not the land could successfully produce enough income to repay the debt. In theory, a mortgage required no further steps to be taken by the creditor, such as acceptance of crops and livestock in repayment.

The difficulty with this arrangement was that the lender was absolute owner of the property and could sell it or refuse to reconvey it to the borrower, who was in a weak position. Increasingly the courts of equity began to protect the borrower's interests, so that a borrower came to have an absolute right to insist on reconveyance on redemption. This right of the borrower is known as the "equity of redemption".

This arrangement, whereby the lender was in theory the absolute owner, but in practice had few of the practical rights of ownership, was seen in many jurisdictions as being awkwardly artificial. By statute the common law's position was altered so that the mortgagor would retain ownership, but the mortgagee's rights, such as foreclosure, the power of sale, and the right to take possession, would be protected.

In the United States, those states that have reformed the nature of mortgages in this way are known as lien states. A similar effect was achieved in England and Wales by the Law of Property Act 1925, which abolished mortgages by the conveyance of a fee simple.

Foreclosure and non-recourse lending

In most jurisdictions, a lender may foreclose on the mortgaged property if certain conditions – principally, non-payment of the mortgage loan – apply. Subject to local legal requirements, the property may then be sold. Any amounts received from the sale (net of costs) are applied to the original debt.

In some jurisdictions, mortgage loans are non-recourse loans: if the funds recouped from sale of the mortgaged property are insufficient to cover the outstanding debt, the lender may not have recourse to the borrower after foreclosure. In other jurisdictions, the borrower remains responsible for any remaining debt, through a deficiency judgment. In some jurisdictions, first mortgages are non-recourse loans, but second and subsequent ones are recourse loans.

Specific procedures for foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property almost always apply, and may be tightly regulated by the relevant government. In some jurisdictions, foreclosure and sale can occur quite rapidly, while in others, foreclosure may take many months or even years. In many countries, the ability of lenders to foreclose is extremely limited, and mortgage market development has been notably slower.

At the start of 2008, 5.6% of all mortgages in the United States were delinquent.[5] By the end of the first quarter that rate had risen, encompassing 6.4% of residential properties. This number did not include the 2.5% of homes in foreclosure.[6]

Mortgages in the United States

Types of mortgage instruments

Two types of mortgage instruments are commonly used in the United States: the mortgage (sometimes called a mortgage deed) and the deed of trust.

The mortgage

In all but a few states, a mortgage creates a lien on the title to the mortgaged property. Foreclosure of that lien almost always requires a judicial proceeding declaring the debt to be due and in default and ordering a sale of the property to pay the debt.[citation needed]

Security deed

The deed to secure debt is a mortgage instrument used in the state of Georgia. Unlike a mortgage, however, a security deed is an actual conveyance of real property in security of a debt. Upon the execution if such a deed, title passes to the grantee or beneficiary (usually lender), however the grantor (debtor) maintains equitable title to use and enjoy the conveyed land subject to compliance with debt obligations.

Security deeds must be recorded in the county where the land is located. Although there is no specific time within which such deeds must be filed, the failure to timely record the deed to secure debt may affect priority and therefore the ability to enforce the debt against the subject property.[8]

The deed of trust

The deed of trust is a deed by the borrower to a trustee for the purposes of securing a debt. In most states, it also merely creates a lien on the title and not a title transfer, regardless of its terms. It differs from a mortgage in that, in many states, it can be foreclosed by a non-judicial sale held by the trustee.[9] It is also possible to foreclose them through a judicial proceeding.[citation needed]

Most "mortgages" in California are actually deeds of trust.[10] The effective difference is that the foreclosure process can be much faster for a deed of trust than for a mortgage, on the order of 3 months rather than a year. Because the foreclosure does not require actions by the court the transaction costs can be quite a bit less.[citation needed]

Deeds of trust to secure repayments of debts should not be confused with trust instruments that are sometimes called deeds of trust but that are used to create trusts for other purposes, such as estate planning. Though there are superficial similarities in the form, many states hold deeds of trust to secure repayment of debts do not create true trust arrangements.[citation needed]

Mortgage lien priority

Except in those few states in the United States that adhere to the title theory of mortgages,[11] either a mortgage or a deed of trust will create a mortgage lien upon the title to the real property being mortgaged. The lien is said to "attach" to the title when the mortgage is signed by the mortgagor and delivered to the mortgagee and the mortgagor receives the funds whose repayment the mortgage secures. Subject to the requirements of the recording laws of the state in which the land is located, this attachment establishes the priority of the mortgage lien with respect to most other liens[12] on the property's title.[13] Liens that have attached to the title before the mortgage lien are said to be senior to, or prior to, the mortgage lien. Those attaching afterward are said to be junior or subordinate.[14] The purpose of this priority is to establish the order in which lien holders are entitled to foreclose their liens in an attempt to recover their debts. If there are multiple mortgage liens on the title to a property and the loan secured by a first mortgage is paid off, the second mortgage lien will move up in priority and become the new first mortgage lien on the title. Documenting this new priority arrangement will require the release of the mortgage securing the paid off loan.