Got a call today

[WCMason]

Aw okay, that explains the retroactive date!

Is the Pt A always retroactive when signing up in the 3 months after birth month or could someone choose to have Pt A start along with the Pt B at the later date? I hope that made sense.

Premium free Part A is always retroactive up to six months, but obviously would never be effective earlier than the month the person is eligible for Medicare. But unless a person is contributing to an HSA there’s really no reason that a later Part A effective date would be helpful to a beneficiary.

 

[LostDollar]

Person turned 65 in April, went to local ss office 2 weeks ago to sign up for part B, not taking ss yet, I'm thinking part. A effective date will be April 1st , any idea what part B effective date will be, have not got a card yet, current agent told them they didn't have to do anything, now won't return their calls, I'm going to help don't want to screw this up anymore, is there a place to see the effective dates, I'm assuming that I should be able to do med
sup and drug plan with June 1st effective date with open enrollment right?

What is the person's previous drug coverage situation?

If not taking social security yet, are they still working to full retirement age?

 

[Hopes]

Premium free Part A is always retroactive up to six months, but obviously would never be effective earlier than the month the person is eligible for Medicare. But unless a person is contributing to an HSA there’s really no reason that a later Part A effective date would be helpful to a beneficiary.

Thanks for that explanation. I've gone back and read up again on the start dates for A/B. Sometimes, I need some guidance to put things into perspective.

 

[Chazm]

What is the person's previous drug coverage situation?

If not taking social security yet, are they still working to full retirement age?

Why would previous drug coverage matter in this situation?

 

[WCMason]

Why would previous drug coverage matter in this situation?

A rhetorical question, of course, and a good one. Of course previous drug coverage has no relevance to anything in the OP question or subsequent discussion.

If the past is any guide, that fact won’t likely stop the blathering nonsense we’re about to get on why it does matter from this pesky troll.

 

[LostDollar]

Why would previous drug coverage matter in this situation?

You're right of course.

I'm trying to train myself to think of the important issues to ask about and I don't have the equivalent of your volume of experience to shut off some of the questions in nuanced situations. I would much rather be embarrassed, both with you and with someone needing help, by asking a question I didn't need to ask than by missing one I needed to ask and then creating a problem for the one needing help. The forum members are not bashful about being biofeedback mechanisms! If I was riding with you today, you could rap my knuckles with your ruler.

The no social security comment focused my mind on whether or not the person was still working, and if so had put themselves in an inappropriate acquisition of Part B situation like we sometimes see discussed here, and that led me to wondering about the Part D too, forgetting about special circumstances.

Thanks.

 

[LostDollar]

A rhetorical question, of course, and a good one. Of course previous drug coverage has no relevance to anything in the OP question or subsequent discussion.

If the past is any guide, that fact won’t likely stop the blathering nonsense we’re about to get on why it does matter from this pesky troll.

I am particularly sensitive to the 2 month issue with the drug plans. I take your comment that it is a good question as a helpful comment to me because it means I am learning to see important issues and at least starting to get key issues in my head without having to look them up everytime.

I do think op asked a question without giving all the relevant facts, while mentioning both a prior agent and not wanting to screw things up further. In that situation it seems to me it might be prudent to inquire about current employment, current health coverage and creditable drug coverage. If someone wants to think i'm dumb for making those inquiries; again I would rather be faulted for having asked than having not asked. And I also know that your good advice cannot be completely relied upon to be correct unless you have the complete facts to work with.

 

[WCMason]

I am particularly sensitive to the 2 month issue with the drug plans. I take your comment that it is a good question as a helpful comment to me because it means I am learning to see important issues and at least starting to get key issues in my head without having to look them up everytime.

I do think op asked a question without giving all the relevant facts, while mentioning both a prior agent and not wanting to screw things up further. In that situation it seems to me it might be prudent to inquire about current employment, current health coverage and creditable drug coverage. If someone wants to think i'm dumb for making those inquiries; again I would rather be faulted for having asked than having not asked. And I also know that your good advice cannot be completely relied upon to be correct unless you have the complete facts to work with.

The OP gave all the relevant facts for the question asked. The prospect is in IEP. Prior drug coverage, whether or not the person is or isn't drawing SS benefits are completely irrelevant for whether the prospect is eligible for a med supp and a drug plan for a June 1 start.

I predicted blathering nonsense justifying your irrelevant questions and you did not disappoint.

 

[LostDollar]

I predicted blathering nonsense justifying your irrelevant questions and you did not disappoint.

You are blathering too, working on defending your position, to the possible disadvantage of op and client.

Op made a post asking a question, but also implying that there were some problems in the situation and that a prior agent had screwed up and that op did not want to make a bad situation worse.

I don't know how many threads in the past year have involved Part B taken at inappropriate times, but it's been more than one.

So why isn't the potential client (pc) not taking social security?
Why did pc do part a and part b apps at different times?
Is the pc still working and is there employer coverage?
If there is employer coverage, what are its characteristics?

It might be that there is a situation in which op should advise pc to withdraw their Part B app. It might not. Not enough facts.

Maybe pc needs a drug plan, maybe they don't. Not enough facts.

Maybe the whole part B, PDP application process was started based on bad advice from the previous agent. Maybe it wasn't. Not enough facts.

 

[StephanieCJ]

Somarco, are there conditions under which someone's coverage could begin retroactively? I haven't had anyone experience that but was told by another agent that he's seen it couple of time recently.

I looked on Medicare's website but found limited information about it.

I've seen part B coverage begin retroactively in one instance. The person's initial application for Part B was received, but never processed and they couldn't say why, so they backdated coverage.