A Massachusetts producer tells a client, 'If you replace your Medicare supplement policy, the new carrier can impose a waiting period for your preexisting conditions, so expect a gap in your coverage.' What is wrong with this statement?

Why B is correct

M.G.L. c. 176K, § 3(b) forbids any Medicare supplement policy issued in Massachusetts from containing a waiting period or preexisting-condition limitation or exclusion. That prohibition applies with equal force to replacement policies, so a producer cannot use a feared preexisting gap to pressure a client into — or out of — a replacement. This is stricter than the federal-style look-back many states allow, and it is one of the signature Massachusetts Medicare supplement rules enforced by the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Preexisting-condition waiting periods are not standard in Massachusetts Medicare supplement policies — they are prohibited entirely by M.G.L. c. 176K, § 3(b).
• C) No time-based exception exists; the ban on preexisting waiting periods in M.G.L. c. 176K, § 3(b) applies to every Medicare supplement policy regardless of how long the old policy was held.
• D) Replacement itself is lawful under 211 CMR 71.13 when the disclosure procedures are followed; the statement's real error is the claim that a waiting period may be imposed.

Memory hook

In Massachusetts, a med supp policy never makes you wait out a preexisting condition — new or replacement.