SAR insurance - a random thought

[Umsaskis]

Disclaimers first: 1) this is NOT a thread about whether people should or should not pay for their own rescues. That has been hashed out over and over again and I'm hoping not to get any of it started here.

2) this is NOT a thread about whether a person is at fault in their mishaps which require rescue, an item that has also been thoroughly discussed.

3) I do not necessarily agree with the idea that I am proposing here; rather, it was a random thought that popped into my head as I was watching the news and they mentioned a recent rescue of some hikers in Franconia Notch. I talked it over with my husband, and we couldn't decide if it was reasonable or way out in left field. So here is the idea, tell me what you think:

Since there is so much debate over whether people should pay for their rescues, and since people may not call for a rescue if they knew they were required to pay, but also since rescues are so costly to those who do them, what if there was some sort of a national or regional rescue insurance program? You would pay an annual premium just like health and auto insurance, and if you needed to be rescued, the "policy" would pay for the rescue. The idea would be that many people would pay in but few would require a rescue, so hopefully the premium would be low enough that people would actually buy into it. Would anyone buy into such a program? How much would you pay? If you feel that you never would call for a rescue, what about the worried people at home who might make the call on your behalf without your permission? Would they be more likely to make an unnecessary call if they knew you had the insurance? Could there be different policies you might buy - the day hiker's policy would cost less and cover a limited category of rescue (ie, no helicopters, no avalanche rescues would be covered), while the expedition avalanche policy might cost more? Is this a totally crazy idea? I think it might be, but I'm not sure, so I wanted to throw it out there for thoughts....

 

[cbcbd]

The main issue with this is that you can't approach it without talking about the issue of charging for rescue.

If everyone was charged for rescue then offering insurance would have some value.

If no one was charged and SAR still provided a service then you have no added value. The money would be better spent with charitable donations to local SAR units.

This topic reminds me of this story - although here we are talking about lives and not property. I doubt any SAR unit would refuse to head into the field because the subject was lacking insurance.

I think the biggest problem is not the rescue itself but the aftermath. A friend of mine got heli evac'd from the mountains because of a compound tib/fib fracture miles away from the road. The navy out here is always looking for a chance to practice with their helis, they can chalk that up to training costs and he already pays for that with his taxes. When he got to the hospital to fix his leg... well, of course they treated him, but at the time he had no health insurance since he was just recently unemployed - that is a huge bill to pay. But that's a whole other issue.

 

[Mike P.]

What would you be willing to pay & who would pay?

Only hikers who may need it & would use, it, hence you would be exposed to adverse selection. (only a small percentage of the population buys it) What's a hike? Going to Glen Ellis Falls? The walk on top of Whiteface after your drive up & take the Elevator? What about walking up from the lot? Driving up Mt. Washington & then doing the Alpine Garden?

Would you make scout groups and schools groups purchase it? (all their trips or just longer trips, even the mile walk in a local state or town park, or Land Trust property? Who would decide what long enough to require insurance would be? - I want that Gov't Salary!)

Are local rail trails hikes? Some people say yes, some here only count winter as the real hiking season & others would say if you are aren't over 10,000 feet, your on a hill, drag your butt the 3-5 miles back. (or float downstream if on an Owl's Head trip)

Our Town's land trust sponsors "hikes" each month (led by an ADK author) we've been to a farm, a winery & a state park in winter in the woods. People don't pay, except for the wine tasting or cheese at the farm - will the town pay for group hike insurance or make every hiker pay?

BTW, real climbers & mountaineers (AK, Europe, Himalaya's) do have an insurance program, it's not cheap. (except in relation to a rescue)

Oddly when I was hiking in Europe, (walk ups in Italy & Zugspitze), I didn't pay for any insurance. (has anyone else - Dave?) Would they have left me in a crevasse had I fallen in?

Who would regulate? Insurance is regulated by the 50 states Insuance Commissioners. (Even Obamacare will have state Mandates, regulation to make sure rules are followed) Fifty states with similar but some different rules. (Is there any hiking in DE? Yes in RI BTW)

Mandatory limits? In auto insurance some states allow a minimum of 5/10 or 10/20, others carry 500,000 or 1,000,000. Commercial Auto at $1M. If I buy $100,000 in hiking insurance does that grant me a heli no matter the weather, no matter what state? Sorry you have just $500 of coverage, the St. Bernard is on the way up with some rum & advil.

IMO, too many headaches to help a few people. (even though the local papers make it sound like a lot of people are getting rescued.) We can't get all the people driving to have insurance or meet financial responsibilty requirements & that's far more frequent & far more costly. (We buy UM/UIM coverage in case we get hit by someone who breaks the law & drives with no auto coverage, or too little.)

If I trip over Dave Metsky's hiking pole or if I had too much to drink at the recent wedding & then go hiking (I wan't there, it's a hypothetical) & get hurt can I sue them under their hiking insurance coverage? (Homeowners Host Liquor if I hurt another hiker or drive in most states.)

Can you insure everyone for everything? (BTW, you'll have to charge enough to support employees of a company providing the insurance, cost for filing policies, rates with all the states, adminstration cost, etc. Then hiker can complain about our rates for walkng & that the guy running Hike Safe Insurance makes more than 80% of us & gets a bonus.

Now if part of our parking fees went towards paying SAR cost, even it it went up a few dollars, a buck a day $5 -$10 on an annual pass, you might have a plan. Of course I see that money getting lost in USFS general funds & bookkeeping beingearly non-existent but maybe I'm just a pessimist.

 

[Stash]

A similar question (poll) from earlier this year.. Would you pay?

My preference would be to pay if relatively inexpensive ($20-50/year). Cheap insurance and provides funding to actually pay the bill fpr me or others, rather than counting on state funding that's getting stretched thinner.

 

[DSettahr]

I have a feeling that this would, sooner or later, end up resulting in a situation like this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life

 

[Peakbagr]

Mike raises some interesting questions as to the 'who pays'.

Does a birder or nature photographer get charged? Everyone reads about hunters getting lost this time of year. Do they have to pay for the rescues that are mobilized to locate them?

 

[erugs]

If I had really hurt myself badly on the wooden staircase on Killington's summit pathway on Sunday, and felt I couldn't have hiked down, would I have been charged to ride the gondola? (A "hiker" we met on the trail said that was one way down, and I think that was the way he was going, and that officials wouldn't even ask him for a ticket. BTW, we would never have done that!)

 

[Little Rickie]

To charge or not to charge is an endless debate.

I'm in favor or SAR and the emergency volunteers and professionals make policy as they seem fit. They got the experience and know better than I. I understanding the plan would be flawed (they are only human) and many would complain. They need to be allowed the flexability to modify things as needed to changing conditions and unexpected results.

If a fee policy results let the insurance companies figure out the risk/costs, how much it pays, for what, who can buy it, what it will will cost individuals and still make a profit. That's what they do.

Personally I think rescues should take place first and the expenses worked out second. Expenses not covered by insurance will be built into furture premiums. It won't be fair to everyone but what is.

Save the people first, stupid ones too.

 

[The Hikers]

I have a feeling that this would, sooner or later, end up resulting in a situation like this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life

My thoughts, entirely. And also those who have insurance are more likely to use it on the premise that "I payed for it, might as well use it!!".

 

[RoySwkr]

My preference would be to pay if relatively inexpensive ($20-50/year).

If you divide the SAR cost by number of hikers, a fair # for NH would be closer to $1/year. Just about anybody would pay that but the cost of collecting it would be excessive which is why it would make more sense for it to come from rooms & meals tax for example.

Mike raises some interesting questions as to the 'who pays'.

Does a birder or nature photographer get charged?

Presumably anyone planning on using the backcountry would be considered the same, regardless of their specific interest.

Some of the most expensive backcountry searches in NH include a missing Learjet near Lebanon and a missing kid near Loon Mtn, neither of whom would have been considered hiking.

Everyone reads about hunters getting lost this time of year. Do they have to pay for the rescues that are mobilized to locate them?

In NH a couple years ago, the 2nd most expensive SAR after the Eagle Scout was an older hunter who wasn't found until the next spring. Nobody howled about that because F&G in effect had the money from his hunting license.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...Nobody howled about that because F&G in effect had the money from his hunting license.

Maybe this is a bit whimsical, but ... what if hikers bought a hunting license?

 

[erugs]

Maybe this is a bit whimsical, but ... what if hikers bought a hunting license?

No offense, but I don't want to be connected to hunting. I'm primarily a vegetarian.

 

[Peakbagr]

Not whimsical at all, Kevin. Your thought is what prompted my post.

A few years ago there was discussion in NYS about 'hiking licenses' and I had the same idea.

It was said that since the licenses purchased by fisherman and hunters support the possibility of rescue they wouldn't have to purchase a 'hiking license'. The logical followup question was what constitutes hiking ? A birder stepping out of his car and walking across a clearing to get a look at a bird seen from the road? What about tourists taking a 10 min walk on a nature trail? Does someone walking their dog out in the woods need a hiking license?

The idea died but I thought that buying a fishing license was the answer if NY ever followed through.

 

[erugs]

Most likely, someone carrying a rifle is a hunter. But not everyone walking a path is a hiker. Some handbags could carry hiking gear, but probably not. Some definitions must be identified if there are going to be labels applied.

 

[RoySwkr]

Maybe this is a bit whimsical, but ... what if hikers bought a hunting license?

You need a hunter safety course to buy a hunting license, but you could buy a fishing license. Now you can donate to F&G if taking game or fish offends you.

 

[Little Rickie]

Charge cards offer different types of insurance coverage for their holders? Nope, bag that idea they charge too much already. Vending machines like they do for flight insurance? Only buy it if you want it. Then there's McDonalds, would you like insurance with those fries? ADK sponsered insurance? Nope, too much like AARP.

OK Ok no matter how it would be distributed/bought insurance will be the ultimate solution.

 

[DrJJFate]

Who would regulate? Insurance is regulated by the 50 states Insuance Commissioners. (Even Obamacare will have state Mandates, regulation to make sure rules are followed) Fifty states with similar but some different rules. (Is there any hiking in DE? Yes in RI BTW)

Mandatory limits? In auto insurance some states allow a minimum of 5/10 or 10/20, others carry 500,000 or 1,000,000. Commercial Auto at $1M. If I buy $100,000 in hiking insurance does that grant me a heli no matter the weather, no matter what state? Sorry you have just $500 of coverage, the St. Bernard is on the way up with some rum & advil.

IMO, too many headaches to help a few people. (even though the local papers make it sound like a lot of people are getting rescued.) We can't get all the people driving to have insurance or meet financial responsibilty requirements & that's far more frequent & far more costly. (We buy UM/UIM coverage in case we get hit by someone who breaks the law & drives with no auto coverage, or too little.)

If I trip over Dave Metsky's hiking pole or if I had too much to drink at the recent wedding & then go hiking (I wan't there, it's a hypothetical) & get hurt can I sue them under their hiking insurance coverage? (Homeowners Host Liquor if I hurt another hiker or drive in most states.)

You raise many valid points. I don't think it is pessimistic. But what if it was kept simple:

1) Regulation wise, the insurance could be crafted out of existing excess liability coverage, which is covered in all states.

2) One fixed coverage limit of $50,000 (annually).

3) One fixed, annual premium (to be covered).

If, by chance, you trip over Metsky's hiking pole and need to be rescued, then you would be covered. You will also be the subject of great comedic ridicule amongst the members of VFTT, et el.

I think when the idea of insurance is thrown around, people are thinking health coverages, requirements, etc. Keep it simple.

This can (and should IMHO) be structured like AAA or roadside assistance. When your car breaks down 100 miles from home and you need a tow, you either have AAA/roadside assistance coverage, which you pay to have or has been provided for you (sometimes included with a new or leased auto), or you pay for the tow out of pocket.

 

[dug]

I always struggle with how you delineate what is chargeable and what isn't. Recently, a 2 year old boy wandered off in the woods. He survived overnight, by himself, in a swamp. He was found the next day after a massive search. It was a heartwarming story.

I think we agree a 2-year old wandering off in Southern New Hampshire isn't chargeable.

What if he's 10? 15? 18? When would you be required to use your insurance? This happened in his backyard...what if my backyard happens to be the Kilkenny? S&R has, to my count, "rescued" a dozen people this year that are not what one would consider "irresponsible/negligent hikers" (alzheimer's patients, kids riding bikes through swollen rivers, lost children, etc.).

On the surface, I don't mind the idea of some type of insurance. I just have a hard time on when you would need to use it.

 

[Little Rickie]

On the surface, I don't mind the idea of some type of insurance. I just have a hard time on when you would need to use it.

Don't worry the insurance companies will define it or the resulting lawsuits will if they don't.

 

[DougPaul]

BTW, real climbers & mountaineers (AK, Europe, Himalaya's) do have an insurance program, it's not cheap. (except in relation to a rescue)

Purchased though the national mountaineering organizations (eg the Swiss Alpine Club).

Oddly when I was hiking in Europe, (walk ups in Italy & Zugspitze), I didn't pay for any insurance. (has anyone else - Dave?) Would they have left me in a crevasse had I fallen in?

It is my understanding (of countries containing the Alps) that the guides generally perform the mountain rescues and simply consider it to be part of their business. They rescue you and then present a bill to you or your insurer.

Doug