Douglas Heller, Stephen Sinas and Tom Sinas
In the January 15, 2026 edition of The Ingham County Legal News, which is part of The Detroit Legal News network, there is an article titled “Michigan’s 2019 Auto Insurance Reforms Worked, Most Recent Evidence Says” by Michael Van Beek of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. This article praises Michigan’s auto no-fault reforms and asserts, among other things, that those reforms have been successful in significantly lowering auto insurance premiums and effectively serving the insurance needs of Michigan families.
The Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN) says that this article requires a rebuttal. CPAN is a broad-based, bipartisan coalition of auto accident victims and their medical providers that was established 23 years ago. CPAN has been extensively involved in analyzing these new laws and assessing the impact that they have had on Michigan consumers. In light of the importance of this issue for all Michigan motorists, CPAN has asked for a thoughtful response from certain individuals who are very knowledgeable about this new law. In that regard, CPAN has requested a reaction from Douglas Heller, director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, and Stephen Sinas and Tom Sinas of the Sinas Dramis Law Firm, who have represented hundreds of auto accident victims over the years and have written and lectured extensively on this new law. These are the reactions of these individuals.
—————
The Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN) says that this article requires a rebuttal. CPAN is a broad-based, bipartisan coalition of auto accident victims and their medical providers that was established 23 years ago. CPAN has been extensively involved in analyzing these new laws and assessing the impact that they have had on Michigan consumers. In light of the importance of this issue for all Michigan motorists, CPAN has asked for a thoughtful response from certain individuals who are very knowledgeable about this new law. In that regard, CPAN has requested a reaction from Douglas Heller, director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, and Stephen Sinas and Tom Sinas of the Sinas Dramis Law Firm, who have represented hundreds of auto accident victims over the years and have written and lectured extensively on this new law. These are the reactions of these individuals.
—————
Douglas Heller, Consumer Federation of America
Mr. Van Beek’s article relies heavily on an unnamed report released by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Finance Services. However, one of the most important facts omitted from the commentary is a disclaimer in the report itself. The consulting firm Milliman acknowledges that the analysis is “subject to multiple sources of uncertainty” and relies on “many assumptions.” The report further states that its findings could be “materially different” if those assumptions are incorrect. That caveat matters. When a report warns that its conclusions depend on uncertain assumptions, policymakers and commentators should be cautious about declaring definitive success.
The article and report claim drivers are saving money. But according to the report’s own data, that conclusion requires us to make a series of assumptions and adjustments to the actual price Michiganders are paying for insurance. The report’s own chart shows that the average auto insurance premium per vehicle in 2024 was higher than it had been during the previous nine years, including 2019—the year the law was passed. In fact, premiums were at least $100 higher than in 2019.
This directly contradicts the narrative that the reforms dramatically reduced insurance costs. When the full premium data is considered—including comprehensive and collision coverage—the claim of major savings becomes far less convincing. Even within the report, the majority of the claimed savings do not come from structural improvements to the insurance market. Instead, they largely result from reductions in the assessment charged by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA).
Once those assessment cuts are separated from the analysis, the remaining savings are far smaller. In that regard, non-MCCA savings amount to roughly 4.5% at the high end, and that figure excludes increases in comprehensive and collision coverage. In other words, the bulk of the “savings” cited in the report are not the result of market efficiency or better pricing—they come from reducing the catastrophic care funding mechanism that historically protected seriously injured crash victims.
Another major limitation is that the analysis does not account for new costs that consumers now face because of the law. The report does not account for:
• Higher health insurance co-pays and deductibles when auto coverage is insufficient
• Increased liability coverage costs
• Rising umbrella policy premiums
• Additional out-of-pocket medical expenses when drivers choose lower personal injury protection (PIP) limits
• Costs shifted to Medicaid or Medicare
These omissions are significant; so much so that the report authors had to admit – on page three -- that these costs “were not included in our analysis.” Lower auto insurance premiums can appear to be a win if the analysis ignores the expenses that are simply shifted elsewhere. Moreover, even if the report’s conclusions are accepted—which they should not be—the analysis fails to measure the broader economic impact of moving costs from auto insurers to individuals and public programs.
Mr. Van Beek’s commentary also suggests that the reforms have not harmed medical care for crash survivors. But the report itself does not reach that conclusion. In fact, the study acknowledges that it could not definitively determine the impact on access to care. Without that analysis—and without consultation with key stakeholders such as medical providers and patient advocacy groups—claims about the reforms’ success for injured motorists are premature.
Supporters of the reforms often claim that lower premiums would lead to fewer uninsured drivers. But the report’s own data suggests the opposite trend. Figure 14 of the report shows that the estimated uninsured motorist rate is higher than it has been since 2016, with the lowest rate since 2019 still at 18.9%. That figure undermines one of the central promises of the reforms.
Finally, despite claims that the law created popular new options for consumers, the report confirms that most Michigan drivers continue to choose unlimited personal injury protection coverage. That preference suggests that most drivers still recognize the value of the full, lifetime, comprehensive protection that defined Michigan’s unique and original auto no-fault system for decades.
Taken together, the data presents a much more complicated picture than the one portrayed in the commentary. Premiums have not clearly declined when measured across the full market. Much of the apparent savings comes from changes to the catastrophic claims assessment rather than improved insurance pricing. And the report itself acknowledges substantial uncertainty in its findings while failing to measure many of the real costs consumers now face.
It should also be emphasized that insurance reform should be evaluated based on the full economic impact on drivers and crash survivors—not just a narrow analysis of selected premium data that requires assumptions and adjustments to make the higher premiums drivers are actually paying sound like savings they have not received. Michigan residents deserve affordable coverage. But they also deserve accurate analysis of whether the state’s auto insurance reforms have truly delivered on their promises.
—————
Mr. Van Beek’s article relies heavily on an unnamed report released by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Finance Services. However, one of the most important facts omitted from the commentary is a disclaimer in the report itself. The consulting firm Milliman acknowledges that the analysis is “subject to multiple sources of uncertainty” and relies on “many assumptions.” The report further states that its findings could be “materially different” if those assumptions are incorrect. That caveat matters. When a report warns that its conclusions depend on uncertain assumptions, policymakers and commentators should be cautious about declaring definitive success.
The article and report claim drivers are saving money. But according to the report’s own data, that conclusion requires us to make a series of assumptions and adjustments to the actual price Michiganders are paying for insurance. The report’s own chart shows that the average auto insurance premium per vehicle in 2024 was higher than it had been during the previous nine years, including 2019—the year the law was passed. In fact, premiums were at least $100 higher than in 2019.
This directly contradicts the narrative that the reforms dramatically reduced insurance costs. When the full premium data is considered—including comprehensive and collision coverage—the claim of major savings becomes far less convincing. Even within the report, the majority of the claimed savings do not come from structural improvements to the insurance market. Instead, they largely result from reductions in the assessment charged by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA).
Once those assessment cuts are separated from the analysis, the remaining savings are far smaller. In that regard, non-MCCA savings amount to roughly 4.5% at the high end, and that figure excludes increases in comprehensive and collision coverage. In other words, the bulk of the “savings” cited in the report are not the result of market efficiency or better pricing—they come from reducing the catastrophic care funding mechanism that historically protected seriously injured crash victims.
Another major limitation is that the analysis does not account for new costs that consumers now face because of the law. The report does not account for:
• Higher health insurance co-pays and deductibles when auto coverage is insufficient
• Increased liability coverage costs
• Rising umbrella policy premiums
• Additional out-of-pocket medical expenses when drivers choose lower personal injury protection (PIP) limits
• Costs shifted to Medicaid or Medicare
These omissions are significant; so much so that the report authors had to admit – on page three -- that these costs “were not included in our analysis.” Lower auto insurance premiums can appear to be a win if the analysis ignores the expenses that are simply shifted elsewhere. Moreover, even if the report’s conclusions are accepted—which they should not be—the analysis fails to measure the broader economic impact of moving costs from auto insurers to individuals and public programs.
Mr. Van Beek’s commentary also suggests that the reforms have not harmed medical care for crash survivors. But the report itself does not reach that conclusion. In fact, the study acknowledges that it could not definitively determine the impact on access to care. Without that analysis—and without consultation with key stakeholders such as medical providers and patient advocacy groups—claims about the reforms’ success for injured motorists are premature.
Supporters of the reforms often claim that lower premiums would lead to fewer uninsured drivers. But the report’s own data suggests the opposite trend. Figure 14 of the report shows that the estimated uninsured motorist rate is higher than it has been since 2016, with the lowest rate since 2019 still at 18.9%. That figure undermines one of the central promises of the reforms.
Finally, despite claims that the law created popular new options for consumers, the report confirms that most Michigan drivers continue to choose unlimited personal injury protection coverage. That preference suggests that most drivers still recognize the value of the full, lifetime, comprehensive protection that defined Michigan’s unique and original auto no-fault system for decades.
Taken together, the data presents a much more complicated picture than the one portrayed in the commentary. Premiums have not clearly declined when measured across the full market. Much of the apparent savings comes from changes to the catastrophic claims assessment rather than improved insurance pricing. And the report itself acknowledges substantial uncertainty in its findings while failing to measure many of the real costs consumers now face.
It should also be emphasized that insurance reform should be evaluated based on the full economic impact on drivers and crash survivors—not just a narrow analysis of selected premium data that requires assumptions and adjustments to make the higher premiums drivers are actually paying sound like savings they have not received. Michigan residents deserve affordable coverage. But they also deserve accurate analysis of whether the state’s auto insurance reforms have truly delivered on their promises.
—————
Stephen Sinas and Tom Sinas, Sinas Dramis Law Firm
The Sinas Dramis Law Firm has represented thousands of seriously injured accident victims over the last 75 years. In that role, we have seen first-hand, the devastation that catastrophic motor vehicle related injuries can have on the lives of victims and their families.
Prior to the 2019 Auto No-Fault Insurance Reforms, virtually all seriously injured persons had auto insurance policies that provided full, uncapped, lifelong medical and rehabilitation expense coverage. That is no longer true under the new no-fault reforms. Now, Michigan families do not get that kind of lifetime coverage unless they pay an extra insurance premium to purchase it. If they decide to take advantage of minimal premium discounts by purchasing the limited no-fault medical expense coverages that are now available under this new law, they may very well be left with woefully inadequate insurance protection that will expose them to significant financial loss and inadequate medical and rehabilitation benefits in the event of catastrophic injury. All for what? Unfortunately, they do so to save a few dollars on their no-fault insurance premiums. Based on our experiences, this is a gamble that no Michigan family should take. If they guess wrong, the result will be disastrous.
Consider a few of the real-life nightmare scenarios that some of our clients have encountered as a result of the passage of these new reforms.
The Case of Sarah: Consider the case of Sarah (not her real name), who was living at home with her parents during college. In response to the financial pressures of modern American life, Sarah’s parents decided to purchase a limited no-fault insurance policy with $500,000 in no-fault medical benefits. One day, after taking final exams, Sarah went out for a run. She was jogging in a designated pedestrian lane and was run over and left for dead by an intoxicated motorist. Although Sarah miraculously lived, she is catastrophically brain damaged and will require round-the-clock medical and attendant care for the rest of her life. Tragically, Sarah’s no-fault medical benefits were exhausted before she even left the hospital. Her care will now be funded by a combination of taxpayer dollars and charitable efforts, none of which would have been required had Sarah been injured before the passage of this new law.
The Case of Annie: Consider the case of Annie (not her real name), who was a minor, living at home with her mother. Her mother worked in a local restaurant and had no health insurance coverage. Consequently, Annie and her mother were covered by Medicaid insurance. The ever-increasing cost of living resulted in Annie’s mother needing to cut expenses. Unfortunately, she chose to do so by purchasing a limited no-fault policy available under the new law that provided medical expense benefits in the amount of only $250,000. One day, Annie was riding in the front-seat of her mother’s vehicle, when a violent head-on collision occurred. As a result of that horrific car wreck, Annie sustained catastrophic injuries, including severe brain damage, paralysis below the waist, multiple fractures, internal injuries, etc. These terrible injuries required Annie to be hospitalized for many weeks. Consequently, her limited no-fault medical insurance benefits were exhausted well before she was discharged from the hospital. Annie now has no insurance coverage other than Medicaid, which pays woefully inadequate medical and rehabilitation benefits for the care of people so terribly injured and disabled as Annie. Moreover, without no-fault coverage, Annie has no in-home attendant care or other important rehabilitation therapy modalities available to her. Her future care will now be funded by taxpayer dollars and charitable efforts, none of which would have been required had Annie been injured before these reforms went into effect. Moreover, to add further insult to injury, the Medicaid system has asserted a lien on a very modest liability settlement that Annie has been offered, which could completely wipe out that settlement.
This could not have happened under prior law.
The Case of Diane: Consider the case of Diane (not her real name), who was living at home with her mother while attending college. Even though Diane’s mother was not well-to-do, she realized the importance of retaining the full, lifetime, uncapped no-fault medical insurance coverage available under prior law. Consequently, Diane’s mother chose to pay a slightly higher premium to continue this comprehensive coverage. Her instincts were right. One day, Diane was crossing the street in a pedestrian crosswalk and was violently run over by a hit-and-run driver. Her injuries were so devastating that it was initially assumed she would not survive. However, with excellent medical care, Diane did survive but she had suffered terrible brain damage. As a result of her injury, she has significant cognitive and functional impairments. She is unable to walk without assistance and is unable to live on her own. Diane will require life-long medical care, which, thankfully, will be available to her because her mother chose not to give up the lifetime medical coverage she had under the no-fault law before it was amended in 2019. As a result, Diane will have unlimited, in-home professional attendant care, vocational retraining, physical therapy, medical transportation and many other benefits that will last for the rest of her life.
It is our view that these new laws should not, in any way, be praised. Rather, they should be condemned because of the trap they set for struggling Michigan families who are now enticed to sacrifice life-enhancing auto no-fault medical insurance coverage to save a few dollars. It is admittedly true that insurance premiums were, and continue to be, unreasonably high for Michigan consumers. However, the remedy to address that problem is not to take away people’s rights, but rather to vigorously enforce a landmark Michigan Supreme Court decision issued many years ago, ruling that the due process clause of the Michigan Constitution requires that all Michigan motorists must be able to purchase auto no-fault insurance at “fair and equitable rates.” That was the clear pronouncement in the case of Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554 (1978). Tragically, however, the Michigan Legislature and the Michigan Insurance Bureau have never taken any meaningful steps to enforce this fundamental constitutional protection. Rather, the approach taken has been to diminish benefits, rather than addressing the excessive premium costs of auto no-fault insurance.
The Sinas Dramis Law Firm has represented thousands of seriously injured accident victims over the last 75 years. In that role, we have seen first-hand, the devastation that catastrophic motor vehicle related injuries can have on the lives of victims and their families.
Prior to the 2019 Auto No-Fault Insurance Reforms, virtually all seriously injured persons had auto insurance policies that provided full, uncapped, lifelong medical and rehabilitation expense coverage. That is no longer true under the new no-fault reforms. Now, Michigan families do not get that kind of lifetime coverage unless they pay an extra insurance premium to purchase it. If they decide to take advantage of minimal premium discounts by purchasing the limited no-fault medical expense coverages that are now available under this new law, they may very well be left with woefully inadequate insurance protection that will expose them to significant financial loss and inadequate medical and rehabilitation benefits in the event of catastrophic injury. All for what? Unfortunately, they do so to save a few dollars on their no-fault insurance premiums. Based on our experiences, this is a gamble that no Michigan family should take. If they guess wrong, the result will be disastrous.
Consider a few of the real-life nightmare scenarios that some of our clients have encountered as a result of the passage of these new reforms.
The Case of Sarah: Consider the case of Sarah (not her real name), who was living at home with her parents during college. In response to the financial pressures of modern American life, Sarah’s parents decided to purchase a limited no-fault insurance policy with $500,000 in no-fault medical benefits. One day, after taking final exams, Sarah went out for a run. She was jogging in a designated pedestrian lane and was run over and left for dead by an intoxicated motorist. Although Sarah miraculously lived, she is catastrophically brain damaged and will require round-the-clock medical and attendant care for the rest of her life. Tragically, Sarah’s no-fault medical benefits were exhausted before she even left the hospital. Her care will now be funded by a combination of taxpayer dollars and charitable efforts, none of which would have been required had Sarah been injured before the passage of this new law.
The Case of Annie: Consider the case of Annie (not her real name), who was a minor, living at home with her mother. Her mother worked in a local restaurant and had no health insurance coverage. Consequently, Annie and her mother were covered by Medicaid insurance. The ever-increasing cost of living resulted in Annie’s mother needing to cut expenses. Unfortunately, she chose to do so by purchasing a limited no-fault policy available under the new law that provided medical expense benefits in the amount of only $250,000. One day, Annie was riding in the front-seat of her mother’s vehicle, when a violent head-on collision occurred. As a result of that horrific car wreck, Annie sustained catastrophic injuries, including severe brain damage, paralysis below the waist, multiple fractures, internal injuries, etc. These terrible injuries required Annie to be hospitalized for many weeks. Consequently, her limited no-fault medical insurance benefits were exhausted well before she was discharged from the hospital. Annie now has no insurance coverage other than Medicaid, which pays woefully inadequate medical and rehabilitation benefits for the care of people so terribly injured and disabled as Annie. Moreover, without no-fault coverage, Annie has no in-home attendant care or other important rehabilitation therapy modalities available to her. Her future care will now be funded by taxpayer dollars and charitable efforts, none of which would have been required had Annie been injured before these reforms went into effect. Moreover, to add further insult to injury, the Medicaid system has asserted a lien on a very modest liability settlement that Annie has been offered, which could completely wipe out that settlement.
This could not have happened under prior law.
The Case of Diane: Consider the case of Diane (not her real name), who was living at home with her mother while attending college. Even though Diane’s mother was not well-to-do, she realized the importance of retaining the full, lifetime, uncapped no-fault medical insurance coverage available under prior law. Consequently, Diane’s mother chose to pay a slightly higher premium to continue this comprehensive coverage. Her instincts were right. One day, Diane was crossing the street in a pedestrian crosswalk and was violently run over by a hit-and-run driver. Her injuries were so devastating that it was initially assumed she would not survive. However, with excellent medical care, Diane did survive but she had suffered terrible brain damage. As a result of her injury, she has significant cognitive and functional impairments. She is unable to walk without assistance and is unable to live on her own. Diane will require life-long medical care, which, thankfully, will be available to her because her mother chose not to give up the lifetime medical coverage she had under the no-fault law before it was amended in 2019. As a result, Diane will have unlimited, in-home professional attendant care, vocational retraining, physical therapy, medical transportation and many other benefits that will last for the rest of her life.
It is our view that these new laws should not, in any way, be praised. Rather, they should be condemned because of the trap they set for struggling Michigan families who are now enticed to sacrifice life-enhancing auto no-fault medical insurance coverage to save a few dollars. It is admittedly true that insurance premiums were, and continue to be, unreasonably high for Michigan consumers. However, the remedy to address that problem is not to take away people’s rights, but rather to vigorously enforce a landmark Michigan Supreme Court decision issued many years ago, ruling that the due process clause of the Michigan Constitution requires that all Michigan motorists must be able to purchase auto no-fault insurance at “fair and equitable rates.” That was the clear pronouncement in the case of Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554 (1978). Tragically, however, the Michigan Legislature and the Michigan Insurance Bureau have never taken any meaningful steps to enforce this fundamental constitutional protection. Rather, the approach taken has been to diminish benefits, rather than addressing the excessive premium costs of auto no-fault insurance.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
