Free Arizona Life & Health practice questions

Answer: B. They are permitted if the program satisfies the requirements for an exception from the federal bar on discrimination by health factor.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-450(B) provides that Sec. 20-448 and Sec. 20-452 do not prohibit any person from providing or offering certain things, and its first two paragraphs are about wellness programs. Paragraph 1 covers group disability insurance: an insurer may offer a reward or an incentive through a wellness program, so long as that program qualifies for the exception federal law gives to its own general bar on discriminating by health factor — the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, together with the regulations issued under it. Paragraph 2 covers individual disability insurance and asks the program to satisfy the equivalent of those requirements. So the permission is real but conditional, and the condition is compliance with that federal exception, which is why calling the rewards unconditional is wrong and why treating any health-factor reward as discrimination in itself is wrong too: Arizona has set Sec. 20-448 and Sec. 20-452 aside for a program that meets the condition. Requiring one identical reward regardless of participation would strip out the link to participation that makes the payment an incentive at all, and the subsection imposes no such uniformity. Paragraph 3 separately permits products and services ancillary or related to a life or disability policy that are meant to head off claims-related losses or expenses, to deter injury or death, or to improve an insured's health or financial wellness.

Answer: A. The licensee, until the second renewal date following the period in which the credits were earned; the provider, five years.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-2903 sets two different periods for two different parties, and that split is the whole point of the section. Subsection (A) puts the licensee in charge of his own continuing education records — the ones Sec. 20-2902(F) describes — and fixes how long he keeps them: through the second renewal date that follows the period in which he earned the credits. Subsection (B) lays a separate and longer duty on approved providers. So that the attendance and successful completion of every licensee enrolled in an approved course can be verified, an approved provider has to hold its records for five years, in a form the director finds acceptable, and the department may audit them. The provider's file must carry at least the course title and subject, a list of attendees, the instructor's name, a copy of the course outline, and anything else the director thinks necessary. Because the two periods attach to different parties, an answer that swaps them is wrong on both halves, and an answer giving both parties a single period is wrong on one half whichever period it picks.

Answer: D. The director may require a full set of fingerprints filed with the insurance department, which forwards them to the department of public safety.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-142 lets the director take in a person's criminal history record when a license or a certificate of authority is being issued, renewed, suspended or revoked, and also when a merger or an acquisition is under consideration. For any of those, the director may call for that person's full set of fingerprints, filed with the department. From there the insurance department forwards the prints to the Arizona department of public safety, which is the agency that runs the state and federal records check and the agency the statute permits to exchange that fingerprint data with the federal bureau of investigation. That routing is why the answer sending the prints straight to the federal bureau is wrong. Renewal sits in the statute's own list of occasions, so an answer confining fingerprints to an original application leaves out something the statute includes. And the mechanism the statute gives the director is fingerprints; it offers no affidavit in their place.

Answer: A. Coverage must continue while an intellectual or physical disability leaves him unable to hold self-sustaining employment and he looks chiefly to the policyholder for support, with proof due inside thirty-one days of the limiting age.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-1342.01 applies to an individual hospital or medical expense insurance policy that provides for a dependent child's coverage to stop when the child reaches the limiting age the policy specifies. Such a policy has to say, in substance, that reaching that age will not end the child's coverage for as long as two things both remain true of him: that an intellectual or a physical disability leaves him unable to hold self-sustaining employment, and that he looks chiefly to the policyholder for his support and maintenance. Both limbs must hold, and they must keep holding, so the test is a continuing one rather than a single assessment. The policyholder carries the proof obligation and it has a deadline: inside thirty-one days of the child reaching the limiting age, the policyholder must give the insurer evidence of both the incapacity and the dependency, and must do so again as the insurer asks — though no more often than once a year, once two years have passed since the child reached that age. That annual-proof schedule is what the two-year answer misreads as an outer limit on the coverage itself, and it is also why making proof purely responsive to a request is wrong. The section continues the coverage that already exists rather than substituting a conversion policy for it.

Answer: A. That it has designated an individually licensed producer to answer for the entity's compliance with Arizona insurance law.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-285 splits the director's pre-approval findings in two. Subsection (B) is the individual list and runs to four items: that the individual is at least eighteen years of age, has committed no act that is a ground for denial, suspension or revocation prescribed in Sec. 20-295, has paid the fees prescribed in Sec. 20-167, and has successfully passed the examinations for the lines of authority applied for. Subsection (C) is the business-entity list and asks three different things: that the same fees are paid; that the entity will stay inside the scope of its own partnership agreement, articles of incorporation or other chartering papers when it transacts business under the license; and that it has named one individually licensed producer to carry responsibility for the entity's compliance with Arizona insurance law. The designated-producer finding appears only on the business-entity list, which is what the question asks for. Age, the examinations and the no-grounds finding are each lifted from the individual list in subsection (B), so every wrong answer names a real Arizona requirement that belongs to the other kind of applicant. Subsection (D) separately requires the entity's application to name all of its members, officers and directors.

Answer: C. Yes, if the director finds that he bore no personal fault and did not acquiesce in what led to the revocation.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-296(B) attaches a consequence to a business entity's suspension or revocation. While it runs, nobody who was a member, an officer or a director of that entity, and nobody who was its designated producer, may be issued a license or act as designated producer for any other licensee. The bar carries one exception, and it is not self-executing. It lifts only where the director makes a finding about the individual: that he bore no personal fault for the matter behind the suspension or revocation, and that he did not acquiesce in it either. Both limbs must hold, and the finding is the director's to make, so an uninvolved designated producer is not free to act merely because he was uninvolved — which is where the automatic answer goes wrong. The answer stating the bar without exception quotes the subsection's first limb and drops the clause that follows it. Re-examination is the mechanism Sec. 20-285(B)(4) uses for an original individual application, and it appears nowhere in Sec. 20-296(B), so that answer supplies a condition Arizona does not attach here.

Answer: D. Refusing to consider the application is prohibited in itself, and rating or rejecting on that basis without a diagnosis is unfair discrimination.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-448(D) is a flat prohibition, and it bites before any underwriting happens: a life or disability insurer may not decline even to look at an application because the applicant has a genetic condition, a developmental delay or a developmental disability. Subsection (E) then governs the step after that. Rejecting the application, or setting its rates, terms or conditions, on the same basis is unfair discrimination unless the insurer can point to the applicant's own medical condition and history plus either its claims experience or its actuarial projections, and unless those together show that the condition is likely to produce substantially different claims. Subsection (F) narrows things further for disability insurance alone: there, turning an application down or pricing it on the strength of a genetic condition is unfair discrimination whenever the condition has not actually been diagnosed off information a genetic test produced. So the actuarial answer understates subsection (E) twice over — the statute asks for substantial differences, and asks for the medical condition and history alongside the projections — and on these facts subsection (F) forecloses it anyway, because there is no diagnosis. Treating the refusal as always permitted ignores subsection (D), which is aimed at the refusal to consider rather than at the underwriting decision that would come next. And subsection (E) does not make unfair discrimination turn on comparing her rate with anybody else's.

Answer: C. Any specified age the insurer picks, so long as that age does not run past nineteen years.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-1342(A)(3) starts from a narrow rule — a disability policy delivered or issued for delivery in Arizona must purport to insure only one person — and then opens a family exception. On the application of the policyholder or the policyholder's spouse, and either at the outset or by later amendment, the policy may take in two or more eligible members of that family. The list it gives is a husband, a wife, dependent children, children below some age the policy specifies — and that specified age may not run past nineteen years — and anyone else who is dependent on the policyholder. Nineteen is therefore a ceiling the statute imposes on the policy's own figure, so an insurer may choose something lower in this clause but nothing higher, and the limit is not simply a matter of design. Note too that the paragraph's separate rules for a newly born child, an adopted child and a child placed for adoption do not run off this age limit at all: in a family-coverage policy other than accidental death and dismemberment, benefits for children have to be payable for a newly born child from the instant of birth, and for an adopted child regardless of the age at which the child was adopted.

Answer: D. The child does not live with that parent, and lives outside the plan's service area.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-1692.03(A) binds a long list of carriers — insurers, hospital and medical service corporations, health care services organizations, and also group health plans and prepaid dental plans — and forbids every one of them to refuse a child enrollment under a parent's policy, certificate, evidence of coverage or contract for any of three stated reasons: that he was born out of wedlock; that the parent does not claim him as a dependent on a federal or state tax return; and that he lives neither with the parent nor inside the plan's service area. The last of those is the reason the insurer here may not use. Each of the other three answers sits outside subsection (A)'s short list. Enrollment-season restrictions are handled elsewhere in the section: subsection (C)(1) sets those restrictions aside, but only where some court or administrative order obliges the parent to carry coverage for the child and the parent can get family coverage at all, so an out-of-season request with no such order never engages subsection (A). And where coverage is being provided under that court-order route, subsection (C)(3) names the circumstances in which enrollment may be refused or coverage ended on satisfactory written evidence — among them that the employer has eliminated family coverage for all of its employees, and nonpayment of premium.

Answer: B. She must apply to become a resident licensee within ninety days of becoming an Arizona resident.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 20-285(F) addresses this move directly. Somebody who is licensed as an insurance producer in another state, then becomes a resident of Arizona and carries on acting as a producer, has ninety days in which to apply for a resident license under Sec. 20-285. Ninety days is the figure the subsection prints, so the thirty-day answer is not it. The clock runs from the change of residency rather than from any renewal date, so waiting for renewal misses it. And the subsection lays down an affirmative duty rather than letting the existing nonresident license simply run its term, which is why doing nothing is wrong. The only thing subsection (F) requires is the resident application itself; the suspension of her ability to transact business until the new license issues is an extra condition the subsection does not contain.