- 2,394
As most of you know, the carriers started complying with the new way of paying True-Up commission on new to MA. If a prospect has existing Part D for part of the year and enrolls into MA, we are now paid the remaining number of months of MA membership times 2 (true-up for the remaining months plus pro-rated MA commission). I just went to a home where the Medicare only + Part D prospect had enrolled with a CIP plan for January 1, 2017 effective date. Since the prospect was diabetic, she could have qualified for a Nov 1 effective date with Chronic SEP. Why didn't the agent put her on for a Nov 1 instead?, I thought. It dawned on me that a Nov 1 effective date would generate $34.50 ($17.25) x 2, while a January 1 effective date would generate the new higher 2017 commission rate (x) 2, BUT WITH 12 months of True-Up instead. Is that the way that it works? Is there a perverse incentive to enroll this member for January instead of November?
Last edited: