FMCA losing their allure?

[TheArnolds]

Originally Posted by dons2346

Most of you probably don't know what the MEDEX program cost FMCA. The program cost approx $500,000 a year for roughly 100,000 members. Last figure available was that the program was used by 15 members in one year.

The MEDEX program was not an insurance policy, it was a contract to provide a service.

My question is: How many of you have sat down and read what the new program provides you for the 100 bux or so it would cost you a year? Probably very few. All you know is that FMCA took something away from you so you quit

Thanks for putting this into prospective. L

[docj]

Originally Posted by dons2346

Most of you probably don't know what the MEDEX program cost FMCA. The program cost approx $500,000 a year for roughly 100,000 members. Last figure available was that the program was used by 15 members in one year.

The MEDEX program was not an insurance policy, it was a contract to provide a service.

My question is: How many of you have sat down and read what the new program provides you for the 100 bux or so it would cost you a year? Probably very few. All you know is that FMCA took something away from you so you quit

It's my understanding that MEDEX and companies like it usually permit people to buy either of two types of service. Under "low cost" approach, MEDEX would be obligated to provide certain services and would bill the customer for the costs of having provided them (ambulances, vehicle return, etc). For that the customer pays a modest annual fee. Under the "full cost" approach the customer pays a considerably larger fee in return for which MEDEX agrees to provide those services at no additional cost to the customer.

If it cost $500,000 to insure 100,000 members then it sounds to me as if FMCA was using the full cost approach. IMHO it would have been more prudent to have used the "low cost" approach under which it would have directly reimbursed MEDEX for the 15 members who used its services. That would have been a "self-insured" approach which an entity the size of FMCA should have been able to handle. The accountants would have set aside a reserve fund but I'll bet that the actual expenses would have been considerably less than the $500k actually spent since that amounts to $33k per incident for the 15 people who needed help.

It's quite possible that the low cost approach was considered and rejected because FMCA is, by its nature, risk averse. But being 100% risk averse is not necessarily the best course for running a business.

[TheArnolds]

Originally Posted by docj

It's my understanding that MEDEX and companies like it usually permit people to buy either of two types of service. Under "low cost" approach, MEDEX would be obligated to provide certain services and would bill the customer for the costs of having provided them (ambulances, vehicle return, etc). For that the customer pays a modest annual fee. Under the "full cost" approach the customer pays a considerably larger fee in return for which MEDEX agrees to provide those services at no additional cost to the customer.

If it cost $500,000 to insure 100,000 members then it sounds to me as if FMCA was using the full cost approach. IMHO it would have been more prudent to have used the "low cost" approach under which it would have directly reimbursed MEDEX for the 15 members who used its services. That would have been a "self-insured" approach which an entity the size of FMCA should have been able to handle. The accountants would have set aside a reserve fund but I'll bet that the actual expenses would have been considerably less than the $500k actually spent since that amounts to $33k per incident for the 15 people who needed help.

It's quite possible that the low cost approach was considered and rejected because FMCA is, by its nature, risk averse. But being 100% risk averse is not necessarily the best course for running a business.

It sounds like you are much more knowledgable about these evacuation services then the average person on this thread. Maybe you should contact FMCA with all this information and make these suggestions directly to them. We are not going to solve this issues or get the evacuation services reinstated talking amount ourselves...thanks!

[dons2346]

Docj, your understanding of the MEDEX program is wrong. It was a pay per member and the number of members was that at the beginning of the year. None of the self insured stuff.

The MEDEX program was administered by a guy named Jim Flint. When FMCA began to ask specifics about the program, they were stonewalled. When the MEDEX program came for renewal, FMCA elected to use the non renewal clause of the contract and opted to not renew. Flint then filed suit against FMCA for breach of contract. He then began a smear campaign against FMCA using boards like this and other RV sites plus personally verbally attacking some of the FMCA officers. It was a rough road for awhile but finally things got settled. I too would be upset if someone took my $500K gravy train away.

Anyway, there is a new breed of officer material in FMCA however the "good old boy" stigma is still there and it will take some time for it to go away. At least a lot of fat has been trimmed and FMCA is now showing a profit.

[TheArnolds]

Originally Posted by dons2346

Docj, your understanding of the MEDEX program is wrong. It was a pay per member and the number of members was that at the beginning of the year. None of the self insured stuff.

The MEDEX program was administered by a guy named Jim Flint. When FMCA began to ask specifics about the program, they were stonewalled. When the MEDEX program came for renewal, FMCA elected to use the non renewal clause of the contract and opted to not renew. Flint then filed suit against FMCA for breach of contract. He then began a smear campaign against FMCA using boards like this and other RV sites plus personally verbally attacking some of the FMCA officers. It was a rough road for awhile but finally things got settled. I too would be upset if someone took my $500K gravy train away.

Anyway, there is a new breed of officer material in FMCA however the "good old boy" stigma is still there and it will take some time for it to go away. At least a lot of fat has been trimmed and FMCA is now showing a profit.

Very interesting!

[docj]

Originally Posted by dons2346

Docj, your understanding of the MEDEX program is wrong. It was a pay per member and the number of members was that at the beginning of the year. None of the self insured stuff.

Then my understanding wasn't wrong; FMCA was essentially paying for insurance for the entire membership rather than taking the risk and betting that only a small number would actually need to use the service. Furthermore, because the premium was based on the January membership level which was decreasing each month the premium was grossly inflated. It sure sounds like that old insurance guy had the organization just where he wanted them.

Frankly, IMHO this was poor management bordering on incompetence. But what could you expect from an organization that went for at least a couple of years with huge operating deficits that were being paid out of assets.

IMHO I'd like to see the organization go public with its books; it used to make them available to members but stopped doing so a couple of years ago. The organization has a tax status as a non-profit (but not a 501(c)3); as such I think it owes its membership a clean accounting for how it spends its money. I'm not saying it has anything to hide, but that's all the more reason for going public with its financials.

[TheArnolds]

Originally Posted by docj

Then my understanding wasn't wrong; FMCA was essentially paying for insurance for the entire membership rather than taking the risk and betting that only a small number would actually need to use the service. Furthermore, because the premium was based on the January membership level which was decreasing each month the premium was grossly inflated. It sure sounds like that old insurance guy had the organization just where he wanted them.

Frankly, IMHO this was poor management bordering on incompetence. But what could you expect from an organization that went for at least a couple of years with huge operating deficits that were being paid out of assets.

IMHO I'd like to see the organization go public with its books; it used to make them available to members but stopped doing so a couple of years ago. The organization has a tax status as a non-profit (but not a 501(c)3); as such I think it owes its membership a clean accounting for how it spends its money. I'm not saying it has anything to hide, but that's all the more reason for going public with its financials.

I am starting to question your reasoning for all your posts? You have moved from one complaint to another and now you are calling for an audit of the FMCA books? We understand that you do not like the way things are run at the FMCA and we can't fix that here. You are not interested in approaching FMCA directly with your complaints/actuations or ideas for a better way so I really do not know what it is you are looking for other then to cast dispersions and find fault with everything the FMCA is doing.

I am happy with our new leadership in the FMCA and I feel that they are honest people and working in the best interest of it's members. They are working very hard to correct some of the poor decisions made by past leadership therefore I am willing to give them a chance. It is obvious that you feel otherwise...

[datrbone8]

We are members, have used the discount tire purchase program and wife likes the magazine. The dues are insignificant relative to the other money we spend on the coach I've gotten lots of great information from members of their internet forum. Having an organization that advocates for motor home owners is valuable. We don't go to rallies or join any chapters but we don't mind supporting the organization for those who choose to

[Steve Ownby]

Originally Posted by docj

Then my understanding wasn't wrong; FMCA was essentially paying for insurance for the entire membership rather than taking the risk and betting that only a small number would actually need to use the service. Furthermore, because the premium was based on the January membership level which was decreasing each month the premium was grossly inflated. It sure sounds like that old insurance guy had the organization just where he wanted them. Frankly, IMHO this was poor management bordering on incompetence. But what could you expect from an organization that went for at least a couple of years with huge operating deficits that were being paid out of assets. IMHO I'd like to see the organization go public with its books; it used to make them available to members but stopped doing so a couple of years ago. The organization has a tax status as a non-profit (but not a 501(c)3); as such I think it owes its membership a clean accounting for how it spends its money. I'm not saying it has anything to hide, but that's all the more reason for going public with its financials.

The books of FMCA are open to any member.

[Steve Ownby]

Originally Posted by datrbone8

We are members, have used the discount tire purchase program and wife likes the magazine. The dues are insignificant relative to the other money we spend on the coach I've gotten lots of great information from members of their internet forum. Having an organization that advocates for motor home owners is valuable. We don't go to rallies or join any chapters but we don't mind supporting the organization for those who chose to

Your attitude about membership is well reasoned and most likely is reflected by many FMCA members. It appears that some of the posters here will not be happy until FMCA is gone and then they will move on to something else to complain about. All the while not being members.

[docj]

Originally Posted by Steve Ownby

The books of FMCA are open to any member.

That is simply not true. I am a member and just tried accessing the Treasurer's area of the FMCA website. The message I received was that I don't have the proper credentials. That's where the financial reports were always located before access was denied to anyone other than officers.

[bigskymt]

Thanks to Steve Ownby for steering this thread in a positive direction.
While I was disappointed by the demise of the MEDEX Program I was more disappointed by FMCA's lack of explanation. IMHO as members we deserve more information then "we've teamed-up with"....
Thanks to all that provided the valuable information that properly explains FMCA's decision. Given this info. it's seems the most logical financial move.
I would like to see FMCA "team-up" with more vendors and advertisers to offer discounts on products and services.
Finally: We will renew our membership when its due. It appears FMCA, at 50 years old, may be suffering some senior moments (like myself for the last ten years). I would hate to witness the premature demise of FMCA. Hopefully new leadership and new ideas will insure another 50 years (and I'm around to witness that) .
If the "C" in FMCA has to represent "Campers" instead of "Coach" I'm Okay with that.

[Steve Ownby]

Originally Posted by docj

That is simply not true. I am a member and just tried accessing the Treasurer's area of the FMCA website. The message I received was that I don't have the proper credentials. That's where the financial reports were always located before access was denied to anyone other than officers.

I just placed a call to Charlie Adcock, FMCA President. He reaffirmed that the books are open to any member who inquires. He was not aware of the web site denial of access. He promised to check this out & Get back to me next week. When I hear from him I will up date.

[CampDaven]

Originally Posted by bigskymt

Thanks to Steve Ownby for steering this thread in a positive direction. While I was disappointed by the demise of the MEDEX Program I was more disappointed by FMCA's lack of explanation. IMHO as members we deserve more information then "we've teamed-up with".... Thanks to all that provided the valuable information that properly explains FMCA's decision. Given this info. it's seems the most logical financial move. I would like to see FMCA "team-up" with more vendors and advertisers to offer discounts on products and services. Finally: We will renew our membership when its due. It appears FMCA, at 50 years old, may be suffering some senior moments (like myself for the last ten years). I would hate to witness the premature demise of FMCA. Hopefully new leadership and new ideas will insure another 50 years (and I'm around to witness that) . If the "C" in FMCA has to represent "Campers" instead of "Coach" I'm Okay with that.

I have found some information to fill in the gaps.
The explaination on MEDEX is here in the Oct 2012 National Directors Report:

http://fmcadogwood.blogspot.com/2012...eport.html?m=1

It includes, "A change to member services was the deletion of the medical evacuation program as a free benefit, at a budget saving of 341,529 dollars. It will be offered as a group benefit, at an affordable cost, to those who desire to purchase it."
Less than the aforementioned $500k.

It also includes, "membership has declined from 130,000 in 2003 to 83,000 in 2012, and magazine income has dropped in line with membership or more."
Note that membership is now about 79,000, over 50,000 less than 2003.