In addition, individuals must pay premiums for five years before being able to access benefits. The law specifically does not allow tax dollars to be used for this plan. The program must be self-sustaining through voluntary employee enrollments.

The CLASS Act is certainly controversial. Some believe that government involvement in helping find solutions to the cost of long-erm care (LTC) is long overdue. The $50 or $75 per day of benefits, even though the average nursing home cost is closer to $200 (John Hancock Cost of Care Survey conducted by CareScout, 2008), would include a CPI factor and could last for an unlimited period of time. Additionally, there would be no underwriting requirements for the employees who enroll.

Some view these factors as important and valuable steps in addressing the serious LTC problem in our nation. Others are concerned about the overall funding and viability of this program. Critics contend that the CLASS Act does not address the real issues of LTC, including the quality of care or the cost of care.

In addition, the critics of the program have concerns about the following issues:

• Adverse selection due to the guaranteed issue nature of the plan
• Potentially steep (and progressively steeper) premiums
• The five year vesting period until the government has enough dollars in the plan to begin to pay out claims
• The inadequate daily benefit "protection" this offers
• The availability only to those employed
• Employees who work for employers who choose to participate in the CLASS program will be automatically enrolled and premiums will be collected via payroll deduction; ie. workers will have to "opt out" if they do not want the plan.

Nevertheless, it is questionable how all this will play out as the "Super Committee" works to find $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts prior to the Thanksgiving committee report deadline. If, indeed, the "Super Committee" is willing to accept the actuarial science used by the office of Health and Human Services, then this committee has acknowledged, at least for now, that the CLASS Act is self sufficient and, theoretically will be for the next 75 years. 

Certainly, if the "Super Committee" takes a closer look at the plan, they may begin to understand the potential flaws and long term costs for the government as well as the consumer. The federal centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that by the third year of the program, only 2 percent of potential participants (about 2.8 million persons) will enroll.

CMS projects that an average monthly premium of $240 would be required to maintain the viability of the program. (Foster, Office of the Actuary, CMS).  In addition, the chief CMS actuary notes that "in general, voluntary, unsubsidized and non-underwritten insurance programs such as CLASS face a significant risk of failure as a result to adverse selection by participants." (Foster, Office of the Actuary, CMS)

The private LTCI industry is watching all of the drama surrounding the CLASS Act carefully. Whether or not this law remains, most companies and agents see this as an opportunity to bring awareness of the need for LTCI. They emphasize that private insurance does not require one to be employed, offers discounts for good health or couples/partners, has no five year vesting period, and has greater benefits and likely lower cost for many.

Realistically, with everything else in front of them, it is hard to imagine that this "Super Committee" of 12 will take the time or effort to do sufficient analysis of the CLASS Act to bring about its repeal.