Smoker's Hit on the Exchange

ha!

Funny thread takeaways...

Peeler is a certified nut (I can vouch for this).

Actuaries have a sense of humor. And lo and behold, Actuary Guy must have somehow already known that Tater is/was a nut. Amazing!

Serious pondering here. Given that this clusterfuck is looming upon us, I wonder if people who use smokeless tobacco will be handled in a similar fashion.

Don't write much health these days, but I do have a client who dips that might like to know.
 
The capital of the United States, home of former (current?) smoker, President Barack Obama, has prohibited insurance companies on the D.C. exchange from charging smokers a higher premium. WHY?...

"Tobacco use is a pre-existing medical condition and a central tenet of our health reform efforts is to open the health insurance market to millions of people who have been shut out due to their health,"

Story: DC Won't Charge Smokers More For Health Insurance - Talk Radio News ServiceTalk Radio News Service

:twitchy:
 
400 of them are elected members of Congress who must purchase an Exchange plan, even though they make too much $$$ for subsidy assistance. Now that I think about it, D.C. probably isn't their state of domicile, is it?
 
Didn't I read somewhere in this forum that there's a Loophole for smokers when it comes to 2014 premiums? That insurance companies are not being allowed to charge the full 50% rate-up? If so, they might want to close that loophole.

Jul 30, 2013
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that high-risk current and former smokers get an annual CT scan to look for cancer. If the draft recommendation becomes final, insurers will likely have to cover the scan at no co-pay cost to consumers

Source: Task Force Recommends Annual CT Scans For High-Risk Smokers - Kaiser Health News

ac
 
The rate-up issue only occurs if the company uses the 3:1 age band AND progressive surcharges based on usage/age. No age banding, or constant surcharges produce no issue.

The issue specifically occurs when an older person, rated up 3 times, also has a higher surcharge, say 50% compared to a 20-something at the 1x rate and a 20% surcharge. The total difference is greater than 3:1 and gets kicked back.
 
The rate-up issue only occurs if the company uses the 3:1 age band AND progressive surcharges based on usage/age. No age banding, or constant surcharges produce no issue.

The issue specifically occurs when an older person, rated up 3 times, also has a higher surcharge, say 50% compared to a 20-something at the 1x rate and a 20% surcharge. The total difference is greater than 3:1 and gets kicked back.

So that's the so-called "Loophole". You explained it perfectly, Ray. Thank-you!
-Allen
 
Back
Top