Tuesday, 21 July 2020

Math is hard

Especially in these difficult times. On the plus side, I recently received this news in email from the Feds:

"Helping consumers calculate their income can be challenging, especially for those who are self-employed or have income that is difficult to predict. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a new tool to make this process easier!

The new income calculation tool allows consumers to add previous income, unemployment benefits (including federal pandemic unemployment compensation), and expected future income to calculate their income
."

They've even supplied a helpful video:



Feeling frisky? Well then, click here to test drive the new tool itself.


from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/39fr2wB

Monday, 20 July 2020

So this is weird

Working on a new group quote, finally noticed something I suppose I've know all along, but just never 'paid any attention to.

Take a look:
[click to embiggen]

It's never really "clicked" for me until the other day that at any given age, the rates are different for employees versus spouses. That is, a male employee's rate is always different than that same age male spouse, and same for females.

Why?

After all, that person is the same risk regardless of whether he or she is the employee or the spouse. Or is he (or she)?

So I reached out to FoIB (and actuary) Gregg Fann for his insights, and he replied that it likely has to do with the "actively at work" clause in group plans. That is, dependents (spouses) aren't necessarily that healthy.

And I can see that, but it still doesn't wash, because, well, up until about age 40, the male spouse rate is actually lower than the male employee rate. And at age 35, female employees are actually more expensive than their m(presumably) stay-at-home counterparts.

I realize that in the grand scheme of things this is really not a huge deal, but it's been bugging me for a few days now: why the difference?

Any thoughts on this?


from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/2CLTDgR

Friday, 17 July 2020

Another great idea

This reminds me somewhat of the Sesamecare site which "takes the reduced-fee, cash only model and expands it to include primary care and dental visits, eye exams and MRIs, and other services." So there's precedence:

"I’m building a network of cash friendly medical providers in the DC Metro area."

This is from FoIB Sheron Sidbury, an agent in Virginia, who's expanding her menu of client services in a very meaningful way. She's taken a clue from our friends in the DPC and cash-provider worlds, and then gone a step further:

"[M]y goal is to help people in our local area find cash pay and other non-insurance methods to take care of their healthcare needs."

I love this.

Why?

Well, as we've noted ad nauseum, coverage ≠ care, and with today's emphasis on both higher deductibles and health care pricing transparency, this seems like a wonderful opportunity to help her clients. This effort is still in the embryonic stages, but I expect that it will grow quickly as more and more providers learn about it and hop aboard. Hopefully, this can continue to expand to other markets, as well.

So, fingers crossed hopefully.


from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/3h3aKtk

Thursday, 16 July 2020

Rx for Shanda

Shanda being Yiddish for scandal. And boy, this one appears to be a doozy:



At the linked story we learn that the vendor (allegedly) overcharged The Buckeye State's Highway Patrol Retirement System. Looks like they're going to be getting quite the ticket.

Express Scripts is a Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM); we've written about these before:

"PBM's are (allegedly) a cost-efficient way for carriers to offload the administrative functions of filling prescriptions."

But wait, there's more:

"While the concept seems innocuous enough, it's apparently become a major source of tension in the health care community, and is frequently cited as a major driver of increasing health care costs."

Oh.


from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/396auXY

Wednesday, 15 July 2020

Timing is Everything (Still!)

Working on an interesting case, and thought readers would be, um, interested:

Sally called yesterday about individual medical insurance. He husband had retired and is on medicare, she still has a couple years to go until she's 65. In the meantime, her COBRA pan is due to run out in November, and she's trying to figure out her options.

There are a bunch of issues here, and we discussed them at length (she's my favorite kind of client, interested and engaged, asking really good, helpful questions). I'll cover just a few of them in this post.

First is timing: if she rides out her COBRA until November she's going to end up squarely in "regular" Open Enrollment Season at the very same time that she's eligible for her own Special Enrollment opportunity. Which means she'll be shopping for a 2-month-long 2020 ACA plan (if she goes that route) and a 2021 version. Which also means that she's going to have 3 annual deductibles in about 60 days (2020 COBRA, 2020 ACA, and 2021 ACA). Not a great place to be, but as I explained to her, pretty common when we're looking at plans this late in the year.

It turns out that she's met very little of her 2020 COBRA deductible, so she might be better served cancelling that sooner rather than later; that way, any expenses that crop up would go towards the 2020 ACA (or other) plan. On the other hand, her COBRA plan is pretty decent, and is a PPO, unlike current ACA plans that are built on the HMO model with pretty much in-network coverage only.

Another option we're exploring is a Short Term Medical plan, which offers better coverage and lower rates than ACA plans, but are underwritten and don't cover pre-existing conditions. That latter isn't really a problem, she's in good health now, but some years ago she had a cancer scare, and we're looking to see if that's going to rule out the STM option.

This is the kind of case I most enjoy: challenging issues, an attentive, engaged client, and the opportunity to look at some outside-the-bun options.

Grateful!


from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/2B1vpP7

Monday, 13 July 2020

Fighting For the Children

It seems the L.A. Teachers Union has issued a manifesto to create safe schools . . . for the children.

The UTLA has decreed that Los Angeles Unified District schools effectively cannot reopen unless certain conditions are met.

And those conditions are?

  • Charter schools should be closed
  • Medicare-For-All ("free health care) is legislated
  • Tax the rich with a state "wealth" tax
  • Fund housing for the homeless
  • "Financial support" for illegal aliens
Perhaps I missed it, but which of these mandates will benefit the students?

And here is an interesting tidbit.

Many private schools and charter schools didn’t miss a beat when Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered schools across the state to close down due to coronavirus. Within one week, most were already up and running with online learning programs, while public schools took as long as 6 weeks to even start to prepare online learning. And private and charter schools have been preparing to reopen for in-class teaching once again.

So how does CLOSING private and charter schools BENEFIT students?

All this begs the question.

Is Marxism taught in L.A. public schools?

Asking for a friend . . .




from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/2Wf663s

CV-19 Claims Another

If you've ever bought a life insurance policy, you've probably (although not necessarily) had what we in the biz call a paramed exam. These usually consist of a nurse (or NP, etc) who takes your pulse, height, weight and samples of various bodily fluids, and then transmits these to the carrier. It's not really a big deal, but on any given day thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of folks undergo this process.

One of the more successful such vendors is - was - EMSI. I say 'was' because, well:
"COVID-19 has disrupoted families, communities and businesses ... As a result, all comapny operatins ceased onFriday July 3, 2020."

Yikes.

So what does this mean to the average person? Well, unless you were an employee or recently applied for life insurance, not much. If the latter, then expect to see underwriting delays while the carriers sort this out. I understand that at least one major company expects this to add at least two more weeks to the underwriting process.

Co-blogger Bob wonders if this may lead to more carriers adopting some kind of simplified issue process,and I think that may be correct: one of our carriers recently (well, within the past couple of years) introduced a product, in conjunction with its sister P&C company, to offer auto/home clients plans which require no application, exams or even paperwork. Pretty cool. So, it can be done, will be interesting to see if it will be.

[Hat Tip: Co-blogger Bob V and FoIB Brian D]


from InsureBlog https://ift.tt/3fquozc