Medicare Part B

[pacinsurance]

,,,, Pat

 

[DS4]

So, this man is "retired', and, not an "active" employee? Usually, you will need to enroll in Part B. Contact the employer for more info.
If he triggers Part B at a later date, this would be GI under IEP, and, for Part D, a SEP.

 

[Chazm]

I usually tell them to contact the employer or HR to see if he has to accept part B or not

 

[pacinsurance]

,,,, Pat

 

[hardwork]

He needs to get on the phone with Medicare, preferably before 6/1/10. I don't see this to be much of a problem,they should be able to take care of this.They will send a new card with Part A only. Let us know the out come! O and this should not effect his GI
eligibility.

 

[VaDwayne]

Medicare is who needs to speak to.

 

[lakeloveroktx]

So, this man is "retired', and, not an "active" employee? Usually, you will need to enroll in Part B. Contact the employer for more info.
If he triggers Part B at a later date, this would be GI under IEP, and, for Part D, a SEP.

I'v always been told that he will pay a 10% penalty per year if he decides to get on Part b later.

 

[Carbmofo]

There are many differents type of group coverage plans for people over 65; but they all fall in to two categories. The first is comprehensive Plans, which do not require part B. The second is a group supplement plan; which does require part B. So it all depends on how the company has their "over 65" health benefits set up.

Typically, corporations that self insure will offer the group supplement plans because there is GOOD money to be made, as their benefits are usually more expensive, and less comprehensive than plan F.

I would have them contact the plan's administrator, and of course, Medicare. Never assume that the insurance company is on the same page as medicare.

Forgive my "newbie" status, but I hope this helps!

 

[pacinsurance]

,,,,, Pat

 

[jdeasy]

My client called Medicare and was told that he could withdrawl his Part B enrollment without penalty and would still have a GI period when he decides to enroll in Part B again.

However, the person he spoke with at Medicare also advised him that if he elects to stay on Medicare now his premium of $110 per month (based on his income) would be locked in. She said that when he chooses to enroll in Part B, which he plans to do in 3 years when his wife turns 65, that he could possibly pay a much higher premium than the $110. That made him nervous and said he was considering staying on part B. I explained to him that he would lose his GI period but I guess the person he spoke with at Medicare gave him the impression that premiums could be significantly higher in 3 years.

I thought Part B increases applied to everyone on Medicare or do they only apply to new enrollees of Part B? Does anyone how it works ?

The retirement plan he will be on does not require Part B, it seems to be a comprehensive plan. I know I'm still learning the ins and outs of Medicare, but this doesn't sound like a good move to me. Unless of course if Part B premiums increase as drastically as he believes they will. Please share your thoughts or knowledge on this. I would really appreciate it. This seems like a good lesson in Medicare 101.

Thank you all for your input on this forum. Each day I learn something thanks to all of you.

Pat

The Part B premium is not going to be locked in at any time. He either misunderstood what was told or he talked to an *** at Medicare.

No one is ever locked into a premium for part B. There is a "hold harmless" provision that keeps Medicare froam raising the premium for part B if there is no increase in pay. The people that were on Medicare prior to Dec. 31, 2009 were paying $96.40/mo for their part B premium. They did not get an increase in pay for Jan. 1, 2010, so they stayed at the $96.40 under hold harmless. If they get a raise for Jan. 1, 2011, they will have an increase in the part B premium. If there is no increase for Jan 1, 2011, the $96.40 payers will stay there and the $110.50 payers will stay there until there is an increase in monthly pay.

The only way he's locked in is if there is never another cost of living increase in pay. Why would anyone chose to pay an extra $1326/yr to ward off a monthly increase? Especially when any warding off is temporary at best?