A Buffalo agent urges a client to replace an existing Medicare supplement policy with a new policy offering the same core benefits at a noticeably higher premium, telling the client that newer policies are always better. Under New York's appropriateness standard for recommending a replacement, the recommendation is improper primarily because:

Why C is correct

Under the New York Insurance Law, before recommending that a client replace a Medicare supplement policy, an agent must have reasonable grounds to believe the replacement is appropriate and advantageous for the insured, weighing the existing policy's benefits against the new policy's benefits, the premium cost, and the insured's needs. Swapping identical core benefits for a higher premium on the strength of a slogan provides no such grounds, and a replacement made chiefly to generate new commission violates the standards the Department of Financial Services enforces.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Replacement of Medicare supplement coverage is lawful in New York; it is regulated through disclosure and notice requirements rather than prohibited outright.
• B) Agents routinely participate in replacement transactions; the law imposes duties on them, such as disclosure and certification, rather than excluding them from the process.
• D) Nothing conditions a replacement on the new policy coming from the insurer that wrote the existing policy; the client may switch to a different insurer.

Memory hook

Same benefits at a higher price on the strength of a slogan is not appropriate; it is churn.