Stupid Consumer Tricks

From the same LA Times act of Psuedo Journalism comes this gem of projection;

"The Long Beach woman said she sought treatment in 2009 for a pain in her abdomen. First her doctor ordered a CT scan of her abdomen and pelvis at Liberty Pacific Medical Imaging, an independent facility near Long Beach Memorial.

She got approval from Blue Shield, and she paid the negotiated rate of $660."

"This time, her surgeon referred her to the hospital's imaging center. Snyder said she assumed her bill would be about the same because it was the identical test. Instead, Blue Shield's rate with Long Beach Memorial was $3,497 and the insurer told Snyder she owed $2,336,"

Wow. I would be pissed, too, if I was asked to pay $2,336 for a test I could get down the street for $660. She should go after the hospital or the doctor who referred her to the hospital....right...?

"In a complaint filed last month in Orange County Superior Court, Snyder accused Blue Shield of unfair business practices, breach of good faith and misrepresentation over her medical bills. The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of other Blue Shield customers."

HIPAA would make it hard to find out, but I have to wonder if her chronic case of stupid was pre-existing or not. Sue your health insurance because you assumed a hospital would charge the same as a free-standing imaging center.

What is the Part B late enrollment penalty?

This is not intended to be a trick question.  But in the Fair Kathleen Sebelius' HHS, it appears to have a trick answer.

On page 25 (page 26 in the on-line version) the 2013 Medicare handbook "Medicare and You" states that "Your monthly premium for Part B may go up 10% for each full 12-month period that you could have had Part B, but didn't sign up for it."

That sounds pretty clear - what's the praahblem? 

Well.  Since you ask.

It seems there is a Social Security document called the “Program Operations Manual System.”  This document is essentially the operating instructions and rules for Social Security.

As it happens, a little-known, double-secret codicil in this manual requires that anyone who declines Medicare benefits thereby forfeits their Social Security benefits.

In early 2012, a legal challenge arose - Hall v Sebelius - over this double-secret Social Security rule.  The plaintiff argued that neither the Social Security Act nor the Medicare Act allows administrative agencies to precondition benefits under one program on acceptance of benefits from another.

The district court disagreed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. Both decisions were sharply divided.  In January 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. By its decision, the Supreme Court let stand the lower courts' controversial ruling.

So the "trick answer" is yes, you face a 10% per year premium penalty for failing to enroll in Part B when eligible.  But that is the least of your worries -  your penalty is actually much greater.  You have forfeited your Social Security benefits.

This much greater penalty for non-enrollment is NOT included on page 25 (or 26) of the Medicare and You handbook.  It's still double-secret, you see.  

Are we all clear now?

Left unanswered at this time - "how long does the SS Admin wait after you are eligible for Medicare but don't enroll, to take away your SS benefits?"  One quarter?  One month?  One hour?

LA Times' Pseudo Journalism

I have believed for a long time that one of the major reasons our healthcare system has sunk so far is the public knows so little. They are fed endless misinformation and downright lies by politicians and our so-called journalists,  while the public blames greedy insurance companies with 40% profit margins. The LA Times has dumped the latest pile of journalistic malpractice on us; So many problems with this piece of agenda propaganda, possibly the worst:

"For those patients who have insurance, getting the lower price would typically mean withholding that information from the hospital or clinic. Experts warn that doing so, however, means any payments don't apply to customers' annual insurance limits for out-of-pocket spending."

According to these "Experts" (and why are they never named?), if you pay a medical bill, you can not submit it to your insurance company.  Apparently insurance companies don't have claim forms or mail boxes where members can submit claims.

As usual, hacks like Chad Terhune - who rush in to push a lie - miss the real story: the far bigger problem is people paying cash to get a discount, then submitting to insurance and getting deductible credit for more than they pay. If someone accepted the cash discount then billed their insurance, the insurance company would have no way to know the member paid a discounted rate and would process the deductible credit at the higher allowable. Not exactly the story Chad was trying to sell, is it?

We see this already in Rx: Member co-pay cards circumventing plan designs and allowing members to pay substantially less then their benefit plan calls for.

The error was pointed out to Chad, but don't expect the LA Times to actually correct an article. They don't like facts getting in the way of their agenda.

Ding Dong - Obamacare Calling

Next time your doorbell rings it may not be the Avon lady or Jehovah's Witnesses. It very well could be Obamacare peddlers.

Organizing for Action, the successor to President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and Enroll America, a group led by two former Obama staffers that features several insurance company bigwigs on its board, are planning to unleash the same grass-roots mobilization and sophisticated micro-targeting tactics seen in the 2012 campaign.

Instead of getting people to vote, they’re trying to get people to buy insurance.

If the coalition is successful, 30 million uninsured Americans will get health coverage and the now-unpopular law that Obama’s team pushed through Congress and defended at the Supreme Court could go down in history alongside lauded national institutions such as Medicare and Social Security.

Politico

What is questionable is, among other things, the legality of such an approach.

Most areas ban door to door solicitation unless you have a permit. We also have federal and state do not call lists.

Some states, Ohio being one of them, ban door to door solicitation for Medicare supplement plans (and possibly other forms of insurance as well).

Agents that are approved to offer Medicare Advantage plans are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from direct solicitation, either door to door or telephone. The Advantage plans are regulated by CMS and HHS.

And of course you must understand that ANY insurance product can only be applied for through a licensed agent.

 if large numbers of younger and healthier Americans don’t sign up for coverage this fall alongside the older and sicker ones, the whole thing won’t work.

The challenge is real: The White House has not been able to penetrate the confusion and skepticism about the law in the nearly three years since its passage. Numerous polls have shown that people still don’t know what’s in the law, or how it could benefit them. 

Young people, those under 30, typically do not buy insurance now and there is no reason to believe that will change under Obamacare.

The exception would be if coverage was free.

Even if 100% of the under 30 crowd signs on, the premiums generated by them is not enough to offset the claims of the older, sicker crowd.

Furthermore, carriers really don't want the highly subsidized crowd as policyholders. Anyone that has ever been to an "all you can eat" buffet knows you don't exactly attract the tri-athlete crowd and free or almost free health insurance will be the same.

On top of all the other challenges is, and always has been, where will DC get the money for the 18 million or so to be covered under Medicaid expansion plus a like number (or more) that should qualify for significant premium subsidies?

The PCIP concept was a good example of a good idea gone bad. The program has lost money in every situation in spite of the fact it failed to meet enrollment objectives. Since DC isn't accountable for anything, we may never know how many taxpayer dollars were pissed away on PCIP.

Obamacare is just another scheme that will leave the folks behind the concept twisting in the wind.

Did Shecantbeserious Blink?

Perhaps, but any celebration over victory of her usurpation of the 1st Amendment is premature:

"[HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious and/or her minions] on Friday announced a broader opt-out for religious-affiliated groups that want to skirt the so-called contraceptive convenience item mandate ... Businesses like Hobby Lobby ... would probably not be affected by the change ... For those with insured plans, the insurer would be required to provide enrollees with "no-cost contraceptive coverage" through a separate policy."

As usual with these rocket surgeons, there's more exemptions than anything else. So who would likely benefit?

A much smaller list:

"[R]eligious nonprofits that object to the mandated coverage of contraceptives, one that will allow large faith-based hospitals and universities to issue plans that do not directly provide birth control coverage."

But even that's a cop-out, because they'll still be required to provide a "stand-alone, private insurance policy that would provide contraceptive coverage at no cost."

At "no cost" to whom?

Yeah, I know.

By the way, sharp-eyed readers will note that I elided over "self-insured plans, a third-party administrator would work with an insurer to set up no-cost coverage through other policies." Your patience will be rewarded.

Cavalcade of Risk #176: Call for submissions

Dennis Wall hosts next week's Cav. Entries are due by Monday (the 4th).

To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.

You'll need to provide:

■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post

PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.

The New ObamaRate$

Remember this:

"Your health insurance premiums will decrease by 3000%"

Yeah, no:

"[T]he Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year ... In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016."

Which is, of course, much higher than any (non-enforceable) penalty tax that might be due.

Adding insult to injury, those expected rate increases will be coming in ahead of schedule. In email this morning from Aetna:

"On January 17th, we sent an email message announcing our decision to discontinue the initial 12-month rate guarantee for new business policies with a January 15, 2013 or later effective date ... To prepare for 2014 when new health care reform changes regarding products and rates will take effect"

As Aetna notes, they are not the only carrier to make this change, and I can't imagine any other carrier sticking with annual rate guarantees from here on out.

Glad we passed it to find out what's in it?