- Thread starter
- #11
Of course they have an option. Carriers that do this are counting on retirees being lazy and uninformed.
If the employee had a positive experience with the group plan often they will transition to the offering from the carrier and no agent involvement.
I have seen this primarily in school systems.
If the employee had a positive experience with the group plan often they will transition to the offering from the carrier and no agent involvement.
I have seen this primarily in school systems.
- 2,525
Don't you feel that oftentimes they are in very good health and have never really felt the insurance's feet pushed to the fire?
There are a fair number of people like that, even when T65.
I could fit in that category if not for my chosen field. Only major health issue was a kidney stone 3 yrs ago.
No hospitalizations. No med's. No health issues other than age induced.
Taking the bait for the MA plan offered through their employer is low touch, no-brainer kind of stuff. Even more so if offered $0 premium although I have seen MOO agents sending stuff via an employer so it isn't just MAPD offerings.
Far too many retirees feel "entitled" to get something "free" ($0 MAPD) after years of paying for health insurance through their employer.
More often than not they make the wrong choice and then later regret it when it is too late to make a change.
I think the most common thing I see is them wanting a plan with the same carrier their employer plan was with.
"My current coverage is with BCBS, I want to get a plan with them since they've covered me all this time"
With a little educating they rarely end up doing that. But it does happen from time to time. Especially if they don't talk to someone like you or me.
Oh yes, there's always that.
- 2,525
You're shittin us?
- 2,177
I have been encountering this with prospects all over Texas for more than two years. The practice still continues. The article below about this issue appeared in the Dallas Morning News Watchdog section in August 2013. Apparently the rules do allow this to provide continuity of care but it does seem unusual that someone could be taken out of Original Medicare without having to opt for that.
With BCBS TX eliminating their individual under 65 PPO plan for next year I suppose their T65 HMO members could be auto-enrolled into their HMO MAPD plan in Houston to keep their continuity of care (they only offer the HMO MAPD in that market). Or, perhaps we may see them expand their HMO MAPD in other Texas metro areas to allow the auto-enrolling to continue in other markets.
From the Dallas Morning News August 29, 2013:
http://www.dallasnews.com/investiga...new-health-insurance-plan-she-doesnt-want.ece
With BCBS TX eliminating their individual under 65 PPO plan for next year I suppose their T65 HMO members could be auto-enrolled into their HMO MAPD plan in Houston to keep their continuity of care (they only offer the HMO MAPD in that market). Or, perhaps we may see them expand their HMO MAPD in other Texas metro areas to allow the auto-enrolling to continue in other markets.
From the Dallas Morning News August 29, 2013:
http://www.dallasnews.com/investiga...new-health-insurance-plan-she-doesnt-want.ece
Last edited:
According to Cornell Law, seamless enrollment has been permitted at least since 2006, pre-dating Obamacare.
Seamless continuation
In applying section 1395w–21 (c)(3)(A)(ii) of this title, an individual who is enrolled in a health benefits plan shall not be considered to have been deemed to make an election into an MA–PD plan unless such health benefits plan provides any prescription drug coverage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395w-131
Also outlined in the Medicare Manual, Section 40.14 on page 52
Jen, just continuing to pad my post count .........
Seamless continuation
In applying section 1395w–21 (c)(3)(A)(ii) of this title, an individual who is enrolled in a health benefits plan shall not be considered to have been deemed to make an election into an MA–PD plan unless such health benefits plan provides any prescription drug coverage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395w-131
Also outlined in the Medicare Manual, Section 40.14 on page 52
Jen, just continuing to pad my post count .........
