In 1990 the U.S. House Select Committee on Aging reported that it had received a wide range of complaints, which included delays in receiving premium refunds, twisting and churning, duplicate sales, overselling, clean sheeting, and agent misrepresentations. The Committee also heard numerous complaints from consumers who have been damaged by anti-consumer provisions in policies that benefited the carriers. The number and severity of those complaints are a direct warning to the elderly to protect themselves from similar abuses.

One customer wanted to purchase nursing home coverage for an 83-year-old aunt with arthritis and suspected Alzheimer's disease. An insurance agent sold the customer a policy with an annual premium of $1,735 promising that Alzheimer's was a covered disability. However, the company later denied a claim on the grounds that the application had not noted Alzheimer's. The aunt is now on Medicaid. Out-of-pocket cost for the first two months of care totaled $7,000. The only avenue for relief was to retain a lawyer.

A widow from Oregon died penniless in a nursing home, even though she had two policies and had paid thousand of dollars in premiums for nearly 10 years. The carrier denied nursing-home care because the care needed did not meet the definition of "skilled" care described in the policies. The sales agent had promised the policy would provide financial security. It did not.
An Illinois man purchased a nursing-home policy in 1981 for $1,000 a year. By 1985 his annual premiums had increased to more than $5,000. In 1987, he cancelled his coverage because his insurance company raised his annual premium to $8,000 a year. A few years later, he needed care, and paid the entire cost himself because he no longer was covered and did not have nonforfeiture of benefit protection.

In Missouri, a physician prescribes nursing home care for a man who was unable to care for himself and selected an intermediate-care facility. The director of the facility agreed the placement was correct. Nonetheless the carrier denied the claim on the ground there was "no indication they any medical regimen was being pursued which would require the continued residency on a clinical basis." The carrier vetoes the personal physician and the nursing home director.