Packerland
Guru
- 556
I never thought about the possibility of group and employer plans no longer being considered credible coverage
Unintended consequences Newsweek article
Unintended consequences Newsweek article
Unintended consequences
- Thread starter Packerland
- Start date
Being waived for 2025
- 1,780
Do you have a link for that? Just read a Newsweek article this morning on my feed sounding the alarm on this for 2025.
I was not able to access the Newsweek article. I am a group guy, nothing I have seen states that the requirement will be delayed. Not saying it won't, just saying I have not seen anything.
Also, just to be clear. There are no requirements that a sponsored employer plan offer credible RX coverage.
Medicare coverage would change under new bill
The bill calls to end the rule that Medicare patients must be transported to a hospital to get reimbursement.
www.newsweek.com
Jim Wright
Super Genius
- 165
We work closely with BCBS SC. We do a lot of ACA/Medicare with them and even more group business. They have not said that it's delayed and they are still not giving out much info on what the group plan needs to offer to be creditable. They've built an algorithm that they are using to determine how much they have to cover but they haven't publicly released any of it. I think it might be another month or 2 before we get a lot of clarity.
I would also suggest that even if the rule gets pushed, anyone writing Medicare should be knocking on the group agency doors to try to get those referrals. Group brokers want Medicare eligibles off their plan but until this rule, there wasn't much you were allowed to do to get them off.
I would also suggest that even if the rule gets pushed, anyone writing Medicare should be knocking on the group agency doors to try to get those referrals. Group brokers want Medicare eligibles off their plan but until this rule, there wasn't much you were allowed to do to get them off.
- 6,820
@somarco linked an article in another thread recently that suggested this is the case. (However, I don't remember that the article went back to a CMS statement type document to validate the article's claim.)
