Option NOT to cure a lapse in health insurance coverage?
-
Can I and/or should I be reimbursed for an employer-caused lapse of less than 30 days in group health insurance in Connecticut? Here are the pertinent background facts. My employer is based in Connecticut, and our group health insurance policy through Oxford (a United Health subsidiary) is governed by Connecticut law. I am the primary insured, and my employer pays 100% of my premium. My husband is on the plan as well, and I pay 100% of my husband's premium (which is about $900/month). Effective December 31, 2009, our coverage was cancelled because of non-payment by my employer. In December 2009 and January 2010, I nevertheless had the full amount of my husband's premium deducted from my paycheck. My employer has now paid the past-due premium, and submitted appropriate reinstatement forms. At some point in the next few days once the appropriate vengeful bureaucracy gods have received their vestal offerings, our coverage will be reinstated in a backdated manner, i.e. effective January 1, 2010 to show no lapse in coverage. In Connecticut, as I understand it http://healthinsuranceinfo.net/getinsured/connecticut/group-health-plans/can-a-group-health-plan-limit-my-coverage-for-pre-existing-health-conditions/, coverage is determined to be continuous if any lapses are less than 120 days. Our lapse has been, to date, 19 days. My husband's health insurance costs me about $30 per day, a year-to-date cost of about $570. This is break-the-bank big money for us. I feel that, since the 19 day lapse in coverage should be under the threshold for pre-existing coverage triggers, that I would prefer to have the policy reinstated effective tomorrow, and be refunded the pro-rata cost paid for the days there were no coverage. Oxford correctly pointed out that because of the backdating, any costs incurred during the last two weeks will be reimbursed to the extent covered. On the other hand, I feel that I cannot go back in time and go to the doctor last week. We knew we didn't have the coverage (we received written communication on January 6), and therefore we did not use it. As a result, it seems to me that it would be preferable not to have the coverage backdated. I realize this is a very specific question, and that no one may have any answers. I am not looking for advice (legal or otherwise) on whether it would be favorable to accept the lapse in coverage and be reimbursed, I am rather looking for insight on whether it is possible. Has anyone done it? Has anyone heard of anyone doing it? Am I missing some clear and obvious reason this is a really bad idea? Thoughts? (I have long been considering cancelling this 5-star plan for my husband, and transferring him to a more modest plan. The premium cost is 30% of my net income. I can't afford to pay it to have him covered; I certainly can't afford to pay it for no coverage. If my only real option to be reimbursed is to opt-out of coverage and obtain a cheaper plan within the 120 grace period, that would be helpful to know.)
-
Answer:
I think you're frustrated because you're tangling up two (or more) completely separate problems. The primary problem seems to be that you can't afford your husband's health insurance. You've felt for a long time that you can't afford it, but haven't changed to more affordable coverage. Money has been getting tighter, but you've been indecisive about what to do about it. Now comes this hiccup in your existing insurance. This is insurance you chose to buy. The hiccup didn't cost you anything more than you knew it would when you signed up for it. This is a separate problem which has not harmed you. Since the hiccup has been cured, nothing of substance is different from the way you agreed it would be when you signed your husband up on the 5-star insurance plan. You seem to be hoping to exploit the second problem as a way of easing the first problem. That strikes me as a kind of a silly expectation. I see the claim you're making -- that you would have hesitated to use medical services had you needed them while the insurance was inactive. But from what you wrote, that sounds like an entirely hypothetical harm. I can't see that you're owed anything. My suggestion is that you look into what you need to do to switch your husband into a plan you can afford, and also politely press for an explanation of the lapse in premium payments. If your employer's cash flow is so tenuous that it's having difficulty paying the health insurance bill, you might want to polish your resume. You sound really frustrated with your financial circumstance, and I sympathize with that. But I think you're trying to place blame where it doesn't belong, and seeking relief where it won't be found.
bunnycup at Ask.Metafilter.Com Visit the source
Other answers
if at the end, there will be no lapse in coverage, then you got what you paid for so to speak and i don't see where you would be due a refund. Now, if the insurance company will not cover a claim you make for those 19 days, i would say you would have recourse against your employer for those charges.
domino
That is understood, assuming that I pay premium to avoid a lapse in coverage and not to actually receive coverage. I hope, however, to terminate (and be refunded) then reinstate with a new coverage inception date (either with this or a cheaper company), because in reality I paid for but did not have health insurance coverage for 19 days. That is, it seems to me that because there are grace periods for lapses in coverage and we are within them (and because no medical services were received during the lapsed time so I have no need to be reimbursed for anything), that I actually receive no benefit for having the coverage backdated. Since I receive no benefit, I am not sure I want to do it. Not for $500. Ugh, I know this is an absolutely unanswerable question. But I am bashing my head against a wall hoping to figure it out.
bunnycup
You're essentially asking for a refund based on non-usage. Insurance doesn't work that way. I can't cancel my car insurance, for instance, and demand a refund on my premiums that I paid for the past two months because I didn't get in an accident. You don't get a refund in premiums if you don't make any claims. The mistake was remedied and your policy was reinstated. You have no damages, so there is nothing you can recoup. Besides, if your plan now is a HIPAA credible plan, you'd have a problem dropping coverage and then applying for new coverage. Chances are, your new plan would not cover any pre-existing conditions for up to a year just because you decided to cancel your policy. The best advice in insurance is: Don't cancel until you have replacement coverage in place.
FergieBelle
Just as a data point, I am not asking for a refund because I didn't USE it, but because the policy was not IN FORCE - very, very different from your example of wanting a refund on car insurance because I didn't get into an accident. It was terminated on December 31, and has not yet been reinstated. I am endeavoring to act before it is reinstated. As of this moment, neither of us has health insurance. However, FergieBelle, on consideration you are right that I could not drop my husband's coverage and reapply immediately, as our open enrollment period is not until November, so it does occur to me that I could not re-add him to my plan. Thanks for the reminder of that!
bunnycup
Jon1270, thanks for your input. I'm not totally sure I agree with it, but thank you. My view is that if I pay for a subscription to a magazine, and it never arrives - I get a refund. If I buy a computer through the mail and it never comes, I get a refund. If I pay for health insurance and then don't receive it, I should get a refund. Yes, I am definitely hoping to exploit the problem, and use it to my advantage. Wouldn't you, if you paid $900 in consideration for a contract under which the other party didn't provide the promised service? It's not so much a blame issue as a "Hey, United Healthcare, I paid you $900 this month and you haven't provided coverage. Before you backdate coverage and pretend you provided it, let me just cancel and get my money back" I agree it would be too late to do this after coverage was reinstated, but we'll see. Frankly the replacement plan is also through United Healthcare, so I am wondering if my great employee benefits manager can make something work. Ohh, she just emailed me back!
bunnycup
I would guess, although not sure, that once reinstated your policy will have been in force for the period in question. Check to make sure that is true. Meaning, once reinstated, if you have a claim for that period it will be covered. If I'm right, you actually were/are covered for that period once the reinstatement is official. So, you seem to have no issue or damages financial or otherwise.
qwip
There is no way your employer will reimburse you for the days in which you were "not covered" because there were no such days. This sort of billing & payment snafu happens occasionally; if you had spoken with your employer when you received the termination notice they would probably have explained that the January payment would be made within the insurance company's reinstatement grace period and that your coverage would not have any gaps. And on preview: As of this moment, neither of us has health insurance. That is true on paper... sort of. Your employer is paying all of the January premium because the insurance company intends to cover all of January's claims. Nobody (except for you) is under the impression that you cannot go to the doctor and be covered. If you were hit by a bus today you would be covered even though the paperwork is still being processed. That's how grace periods work; it may suck for you financially, but it's the only option.
stefanie
As a way of restating my question here, hypothetically, if I simply cancelled the coverage BEFORE it was reinstated, such that I paid the monthly premium in full but coverage was never provided (i.e. not through backdating, not at all.), would I be entitled to a refund? My gut tells me yes, but that once coverage is provided on paper through backdating, I would not be.
bunnycup
That's how grace periods work; it may suck for you financially, but it's the only option. Is that a late-premium grace period, or the lapse in coverage grace period? It looks like for a certain number of days after termination of a policy (120 in CT and 63 in PA, our state of residence which would govern an individual plan), we are immune from pre-existing coverage clauses, treated as if there was continuous coverage. (Sorry so many questions, even though I have a life insurance license, I'm not well versed on health insurance, and don't have a lot of sources of advice. Answers so far have been incredibly helpful.)
bunnycup
Related Q & A:
- Who has the best health insurance in South Carolina?Best solution by health.usnews.com
- How do I start career selling Health insurance?Best solution by insurancecareer.com
- Why does having health insurance before being diagnosed with a serious condition make a difference?Best solution by Yahoo! Answers
- Question about applying for health insurance?
- What are coverage characteristics of health insurance?Best solution by Yahoo! Answers
Just Added Q & A:
- How many active mobile subscribers are there in China?Best solution by Quora
- How to find the right vacation?Best solution by bookit.com
- How To Make Your Own Primer?Best solution by thekrazycouponlady.com
- How do you get the domain & range?Best solution by ChaCha
- How do you open pop up blockers?Best solution by Yahoo! Answers
For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.
-
Got an issue and looking for advice?
-
Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.
-
Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.
Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.