- 15,041
So here is a question. If Anthem BC has its child only plans pending approval on 1/1/11, are they locked out of the IFP for 5 years? You could argue that they would have had the plans to offer, if only the state would have made a decision.
Florida Judges Rejects Motion to Dismiss
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
So here is a question. If Anthem BC has its child only plans pending approval on 1/1/11, are they locked out of the IFP for 5 years? You could argue that they would have had the plans to offer, if only the state would have made a decision.
- 3,384
I believe the way AB 2244 is written, it is not automatic, but can be imposed (by whom I have no idea, perhaps the commissioner -- cue Rick). I believe it's the commissioner of DOI and the head of DMHC.
Anthem currently has a few plans available that were DHMC approved (HMOs and two pricey PPO plans). Those do not have kid-only options either.
So this is a very good question. If Anthem asks for kid-only youthcare rate approval and it gets held up, would the state impose the 5-year blackout? I suspect as long as the plans were "filed", probably not.
Remember, Anthem sent all of us CA agents an e-mail not long ago indicating losses in CA on IFP of $100MM or more in 2010. Maybe they just take their ball and go home?
Anthem currently has a few plans available that were DHMC approved (HMOs and two pricey PPO plans). Those do not have kid-only options either.
So this is a very good question. If Anthem asks for kid-only youthcare rate approval and it gets held up, would the state impose the 5-year blackout? I suspect as long as the plans were "filed", probably not.
Remember, Anthem sent all of us CA agents an e-mail not long ago indicating losses in CA on IFP of $100MM or more in 2010. Maybe they just take their ball and go home?
- 901
Re: Other legislative packages held unconstitutional
You guys are floatin' your boats up the wrong stream.
As Judge Vinson stated in his opinion, this is an issue of first impression. Thus, there is no precedent. If there were, we wouldn't be here.
You guys are floatin' your boats up the wrong stream.
As Judge Vinson stated in his opinion, this is an issue of first impression. Thus, there is no precedent. If there were, we wouldn't be here.
Similar threads
