|
The Phlegmatist posted:The whole thing is pretty much collapsing to the ground sooner than anyone anticipated, so...yeah. It can't collapse soon enough: https://twitter.com/scottheins/status/969747942713298945?s=21 Jesus Christ everything about this is infuriating. The WV teachers should occupy the statehouse until they get what they want and burn it down if they don't. I hope this spreads.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Virtue posted:A months supply of a single medication could cost the insurance company more than that annual premium. I’m surprised it isn’t higher. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Hahaha gently caress The important thing to remember is that while that cash price may be lower it will ALSO mean that the amount you pay doesn't go towards your deductible or out-of-pocket maximum. It seems independent pharmacists - like HealthMart's network - are keen on ignoring this. I know my personal pharmacist almost always brings up the price difference for something like hydrocortisone lotion under the formulary rate vs the cash price. Anytime there's some ridiculous price discrepancy they just run it under insurance and then charge me no more than the cash price - they make up the cost difference themselves - so that it can be applied to the insurance deductible/OOP-max and I can save money. There's probably a contractual rule that doesn't allow this, but they've been in business for decades, have navigated through every insurance curveball thrown, and never seem phased by any of it. They don't seem too worried about losing the money since I assume they just deduct it as a business expense since it's a rebate to the customer. ---- I don't see any ethical problems with it, either. Your deductible/OOP-max are accrued in the same way when you have a prescription co-pay savings card from a manufacturer. Your insurance thinks you paid $100 to pick up that brand name drug, but the savings card knocked that down to $20. Which means you just "saved" $80 towards your deductible/OOP-max. Those co-pay savings cards easily save me and most of my friends/family hundreds to $1000+ each year. It really amazes me that people will go back and argue with their doctor for a therapeutic alternative that's generic and would be $10 to pick up rather than spend the $20 on the brand name that came with a co-pay savings card that gave you a free $80 towards your deductible/OOP-max. Hell if anything I *encourage* people that have high healthcare utilization to go this route because it will really help bring down their costs in the long run...but a lot of people refuse to do it. I know one couple this year that had their formulary brand name drugs with co-pay savings cards picked out in advance of the New Year. They got their scripts changed over if necessary in advance and made sure their first medical costs of the year were all pharmacy. Few days after the beginning of the year their refills are due, hit only the co-pay savings card ones, and since they have so many medications they hit their deductible on just filling those medications that day...but in reality they'd only spent a fraction of the cost because of the co-pay savings cards. I'm pretty sure by this time next week they'll have hit their OOP-max with only a bare minimum of office visits involved because they make sure any procedures and so on are pushed into mid-March or later if possible so they can maximize those co-pay savings cards. In the end they'll have likely saved thousands of dollars they never had to pay, but the insurance thinks they did, all because of those co-pay savings cards. I really don't know why more people don't do this other than seriously not understanding how it can be to your benefit. ---- Then again I know a person that would rather spend several hundred dollars a month on CBD oil to help with an issue that would otherwise be solved for medication that would cost a fraction of that just because they refuse to go to a doctor and get a prescription.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
Wow why doesn't everyone just *absurdly and needlessly complex solution requiring specialized industry knowledge and that one pharmacy near my house which is willing to eat losses on customers' behalf and commit insurance fraud*, it's so simple!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I really don't know why more people don't do this other than seriously not understanding how it can be to your benefit. You answered your own question. It's needlessly complicated and too many hoops to jump through for the vast majority of people who just want insurance to work the way they believe it should: by just paying the premiums and letting the insurance company by and large cover it. It's utterly absurd that anyone would need to sit down and min/max their prescriptions in advance to make them remotely affordable. I guess you and that couple you know get some sort of thrill out of it like you're getting away with something but it's just another indication of a completely broken system that needs to be loving razed. Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Mar 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
View of some dude who experienced both American healthcare and the NHS: https://www.businessinsider.in/What-Its-Like-When-Youre-An-American-Using-Britains-NHS/articleshow/46057777.cms
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wow why doesn't everyone just *absurdly and needlessly complex solution requiring specialized industry knowledge and that one pharmacy near my house which is willing to eat losses on customers' behalf and commit insurance fraud*, it's so simple! If you find a good independent pharmacy they'll do a lot of the heavy lifting (like yelling at insurance companies) for you. They hate PBMs and the major retail chains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:The important thing to remember is that while that cash price may be lower it will ALSO mean that the amount you pay doesn't go towards your deductible or out-of-pocket maximum. Let's just say we do this and the drug in question is $900 for a 30 day supply. The manufacturer writes it off but our insurance thinks we paid that much toward our deductible. In fact we basically wait until March to make any appts because by then we have a fully funded deductible and everything is 85/15 afterward. Its literally the only way making this affordable for our family at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wow why doesn't everyone just *absurdly and needlessly complex solution requiring specialized industry knowledge and that one pharmacy near my house which is willing to eat losses on customers' behalf and commit insurance fraud*, it's so simple! Co-pay savings aren't insurance fraud. Writing down the difference between the co-pay for a generic & the cash price isn't insurance fraud either nor does it require the one special pharmacy you have to know about. I know one local *VERY* large hospital group that runs its own retail pharmacies and they all do it without even asking you upfront. If there's a method to help people save money by not paying expenses towards their deductible that's absolutely solid advice. From the insurance's perspective there's no *requirement* that you pay those expenses: it's just that those expenses are your responsibility. If the provider decides to not charge you or write it off then that's how you handled your responsibility. It's like if you had an orthopedic brace and your provider bills the insurance - it comes back with you owing $500 - and you point out to the provider that you can buy this brace for $100 on Amazon. If the provider agrees to write down your cost to $100 then you've negotatied a reduction in your responsibility. The post below by Koirhor is what I'm talking about. Koirhor posted:Let's just say we do this and the drug in question is $900 for a 30 day supply. The manufacturer writes it off but our insurance thinks we paid that much toward our deductible. In fact we basically wait until March to make any appts because by then we have a fully funded deductible and everything is 85/15 afterward. Its literally the only way making this affordable for our family at the moment. Rhesus Pieces posted:It's utterly absurd that anyone would need to sit down and min/max their prescriptions in advance to make them remotely affordable. I guess you and that couple you know get some sort of thrill out of it like you're getting away with something but it's just another indication of a completely broken system that needs to be loving razed. I'm not claiming that this approach is the best way to run the system - it clearly isn't - but that doesn't change the fact that this is the way the system works right now. This is especially true when some family with $30k of post-tax income and a $3000/person deductible suddenly has major medical expenses and has no idea how they're going to make ends meet AND pay them. If some teacher in West Virginia has to turn in their loving workout logs to be able to even keep their health insurance then I sure as gently caress don't have a problem with them maximizing the benefits of things like co-pay savings cards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
I suspect that the ‘workout logs’ thing is kind of overblown and the West Virginia teacher is hamming it up for dramatic effect. What is likely the case is that if she doesn’t do a moderate amount of physical activity and log it with a free pedometer or automatically on her phone’s pedometer, she won’t receive a $500 credit. If she only does a fraction of the steps requirement, she will only get a fraction of the credit. I have a similar program at my work. It’s not as Draconian as the teacher makes it sound. It sucks that her premiums are greatly going up though—people really need to start applying pressure to providers and drug and device companies to lower costs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I suspect that the ‘workout logs’ thing is kind of overblown and the West Virginia teacher is hamming it up for dramatic effect. What is likely the case is that if she doesn’t do a moderate amount of physical activity and log it with a free pedometer or automatically on her phone’s pedometer, she won’t receive a $500 credit. If she only does a fraction of the steps requirement, she will only get a fraction of the credit. Employee "wellness" programs have been proven to be pretty ineffective at lowering employer premiums--although they are effective as far as giving employers more control over employees' personal lives and privacy preferences. I'm pretty sure such programs have been found to discriminate against certain racial and socioeconomic groups.* Whether such programs have the material effect of artificially hiking premiums against wellness "credits" or just give out gift cards to those willing (or compelled) to cede their personal autonomy and privacy they're still wrong & immoral, and have done nothing to curb the rise in employer-provided healthcare premiums and out-of-pocket employee costs. They don't work, and have never been proven to work. eta: *and the programs also discriminate against people with disabilities. quote:I have a similar program at my work. It’s not as Draconian as the teacher makes it sound. It sucks that her premiums are greatly going up though—people really need to start applying pressure to providers and drug and device companies to lower costs. Or, alternatively, we could demand that the people who work on our behalf and have the actual power to regulate those industries aren't financially dependent on them, nor allow those industries to write the legislation that purportedly serves to regulate them. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Mar 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I have a similar program at my work. It’s not as Draconian as the teacher makes it sound. It sucks that her premiums are greatly going up though—people really need to start applying pressure to providers and drug and device companies to lower costs. As long as private third party payers in the US want to treat the exercise like a wild west B2B swindle where the patient occasionally gets saddled with the full cost nothing is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I suspect that the ‘workout logs’ thing is kind of overblown and the West Virginia teacher is hamming it up for dramatic effect. What is likely the case is that if she doesn’t do a moderate amount of physical activity and log it with a free pedometer or automatically on her phone’s pedometer, she won’t receive a $500 credit. If she only does a fraction of the steps requirement, she will only get a fraction of the credit. I've heard of these health incentive programs working mostly as a carrot (i.e. let them track you and you get a premium discount), but I can easily see them changing it to a stick (where your advertised rate goes way up "should you choose not to participate in the health incentive program") and your reward for doing your steps and keeping a food diary goes straight to Jeff Bezos who then graciously lets you pick out $25 worth of junk from his online store. Since we live in hellworld I'd put money on this being more like the latter. And even if it's the former, gently caress that. There needs to be more pushback on these invasive corporate surveillance programs anyway. Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
We have a system in place where we'll pay for your gym membership (among various other lifestyle things.) It's kind of annoying to use since you need to have proof that you paid for something, so you either need to fax in a paid bill or your bank statement. The latter of which people are understandably worried about. Then we'll pay you half and then your employer gets the other half. Why don't we pay the member the whole amount? Because it's used as a competitive tool when we compete with other insurers to reduce an employer's expenditure on healthcare costs. The root reason for this is that employers have become increasingly pissed off about the continual 8-9% annual increases in their healthcare spending. So they're grasping at anything that will give them some way to lower the cost of offering their employees insurance. This goes for self-insured firms as well, not even for firms where we're the payer. The big working group (Healthcare Transformation Alliance) that was recently formed from a coalition of huge employers to fight PBMs wants legislative action against PBMs. If they don't get that, they want to have full control over the formulary used for employee pharmaceutical benefits. Caterpillar already does this -- they denied their employees access to brand-name statins to save money. So we're looking at going from employers making you submit your exercise logs to deciding what drugs they'll even pay for. And people will blame insurance companies because the whole loving system is so opaque.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I've heard of these health incentive programs working mostly as a carrot (i.e. let them track you and you get a premium discount), but I can easily see them changing it to a stick (where your advertised rate goes way up "should you choose not to participate in the health incentive program") and your reward for doing your steps and keeping a food diary goes straight to Jeff Bezos who then graciously lets you pick out $25 worth of junk from his online store. lol I was right, it was structured to be punitive. Hellworld baby awoooo quote:Under the new initiative, which launched Jan. 1, PEIA insurees earn points by completing health assessments, meeting a variety of health goals and participating in various healthy lifestyle and fitness programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I suspect that the ‘workout logs’ thing is kind of overblown and the West Virginia teacher is hamming it up for dramatic effect. What is likely the case is that if she doesn’t do a moderate amount of physical activity and log it with a free pedometer or automatically on her phone’s pedometer, she won’t receive a $500 credit. If she only does a fraction of the steps requirement, she will only get a fraction of the credit. I like how the reaction to an obviously incredibly lovely plan is that "it must be overblown because no way it can be that bad."
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
Do Workplace Wellness Programs Work? Usually Notquote:The Kaiser survey found that 71 percent of all firms think such programs are “very” or “somewhat” effective, compared with only 47 percent for greater employee cost sharing or 33 percent for tighter networks. (Recent research on public employee plans in Massachusetts found that tighter networks were associated with large savings.) What could go wrong "encouraging wellness," especially under a Republican Congress? quote:While many individuals may have privacy and discrimination concerns about their employers collecting biometric and health information, those with a stigmatized health conditions may have even stronger concerns. Even in the face of financial penalties, including higher health insurance premiums, most people offered the opportunity to participate in workplace wellness health screening programs decline to do so. Current federal law (the ADA and GINA) limit inducements employers can use to encourage workers and their family members to disclose information to wellness programs. Even under Obama, "wellness" programs faced legal challenges on the basis of discrimination (olds, in this instance--a group I forgot to include in my prior group of adversely impacted minorities, those in lower socioeconomic groups, and people with disabilities): quote:While the courts have yet to fully weigh in, the commission has had mixed success in limiting the ability of employers to strong-arm their workers. It also faced pressure from the White House and others to avoid derailing employers’ efforts, which were seen as central to containing health care costs. But at least there are privacy safeguards, right? Wrong. quote:In a California Law Review paper, my coauthors and I found that there are insufficient protections for employee health data, leaving workers vulnerable to privacy invasion and employment discrimination. Most notable, wellness program vendors are able to amass a trove of health information through questionnaires and medical exams. Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibit employers from collecting health data information from employees, but certain rules exempt health data collection by wellness programs. But employers love these programs, and they wouldn't lie! quote:In 2009, Safeway CEO Steven A. Burd launched a public relations and political campaign claiming that his company had seen a stunning drop in health care costs after implementing a wellness program. In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Burd said that Safeway had begun testing employees’ tobacco usage, weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels in 2005 and tying financial incentives to their results. Burd called this program “completely voluntary” in the same paragraph that he explained individuals who didn’t pass these tests had to pay $780 more in annual premiums, or $1,560 more for family plans. This kind of doublespeak is par for the course in the world of corporate wellness, where avoiding a financial penalty is often framed as getting a discount. There is absolutely nothing good about these programs, and the only reason they exist today is because employers, insurance companies and members of Congress want them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
We have the wellness program and there’s some sort of penalty for not doing the yearly survey, I can’t remember exactly what though. You can get gift cards and junk but then you’re supposed to pay taxes on them at the end of the year, go gently caress yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I suspect that the ‘workout logs’ thing is kind of overblown and the West Virginia teacher is hamming it up for dramatic effect. What is likely the case is that if she doesn’t do a moderate amount of physical activity and log it with a free pedometer or automatically on her phone’s pedometer, she won’t receive a $500 credit. If she only does a fraction of the steps requirement, she will only get a fraction of the credit. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
adhuin posted:In Finland that same Epipen costs 55€ which is gets 40% co-pay from Kela, which drops its cost 33€ to a person. Well just thank senator joe manchin and his terrible family for the price gouging
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
On the one hand, I have a co-worker who found out she was a Type 2 diabetic through my company plans yearly weigh in and blood draw (optional, of course...unless you don't want the $300 HSA reward for scoring a 71 or above or increasing your health score by 5 points). They found her blood sugar level to be at 800...literally telling her to "go to the ER, NOW!" She thought her weight loss, tiredness, and thirst were due to her recently quitting smoking and going to the gym a lot. And I got help on my cholesterol from my doc after going to one. But at the same time: it's invasive as hell, totally random (I somehow gained 8 points one year based on my waist to hip ratio despite weighing the same, then lost them the next year), and their "reasonable exception" to get the extra $300 if you don't score above a 71 or gain 5 points in their stupid scale is a colossal waste of time. So people are getting to the point where they skip it if they don't think they'll get the money. Which, unless they have some other plan in place or a decent PCP, just means worse outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
blackmet posted:On the one hand, I have a co-worker who found out she was a Type 2 diabetic through my company plans yearly weigh in and blood draw (optional, of course...unless you don't want the $300 HSA reward for scoring a 71 or above or increasing your health score by 5 points). They found her blood sugar level to be at 800...literally telling her to "go to the ER, NOW!" She thought her weight loss, tiredness, and thirst were due to her recently quitting smoking and going to the gym a lot. And I got help on my cholesterol from my doc after going to one. I strongly suspect that program outcomes would be much much better in general if the incentive was offered to just go in to a doctor for a yearly checkup + health advice, with health fairs offered at the workplace as a checkup option. Don't tie incentives to any ridiculous "activity" measure (or at least make only a minority of the incentives tied to "performance"), and don't tie them to employment at all. Make it a national/ state program.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
blackmet posted:On the one hand, I have a co-worker who found out she was a Type 2 diabetic through my company plans yearly weigh in and blood draw (optional, of course...unless you don't want the $300 HSA reward for scoring a 71 or above or increasing your health score by 5 points). They found her blood sugar level to be at 800...literally telling her to "go to the ER, NOW!" She thought her weight loss, tiredness, and thirst were due to her recently quitting smoking and going to the gym a lot. And I got help on my cholesterol from my doc after going to one. This sounds almost like they do the weigh-ins and blood test results publicly for everyone to see and hear. That can't possibly be true, right? Or did your co-worker tell you about this after the fact?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
blackmet posted:On the one hand, I have a co-worker who found out she was a Type 2 diabetic through my company plans yearly weigh in and blood draw (optional, of course...unless you don't want the $300 HSA reward for scoring a 71 or above or increasing your health score by 5 points). They found her blood sugar level to be at 800...literally telling her to "go to the ER, NOW!" She thought her weight loss, tiredness, and thirst were due to her recently quitting smoking and going to the gym a lot. And I got help on my cholesterol from my doc after going to one. We've caught people with blood pressures above 180/120 mmHg (aka the seek medical help immediately danger zone) too so it's fairly useful for that. You noticed the problem though in that the incentives tend to be a reward for people who are already moderately healthy rather than acting as an actual incentive for people to improve their health. People really don't understand the system or receive much guidance on improving their scores. We do pay an incentive for people to get their annual checkup, but it's pretty low. Certainly not an amount of money that would be worth taking a day off of work or help you overcome your fear of going to the doctor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Here's where I have a problem with the 'healthcare incentives' packages that are in workplaces: I have high cholesterol. I eat practically a vegan diet, don't smoke nor drink, eliminated nearly all sugar form my diet, I exercise all the time, and I count my steps with a FitBit. However, that number isn't really budging. I'm under a doctor's supervision for it, so I'm not worried. My doctor so far isn't that concerned, because he can read charts, calculate the ratios between my good and bad cholesterols, and decide that "Well, Qu, you're fine; keep it up." So far, we think it's genetically based. I could eat 100% lettuce, and still have high cholesterol. However, some healthcare wellness robot will go "BLEEP BLOOP HIGH NUMBER PUNISH NO GIFTCARD FOR YOU!" or raise my rates, despite me doing everything I can, because my parents were goddamn fat-making mutants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Qu Appelle posted:Here's where I have a problem with the 'healthcare incentives' packages that are in workplaces: Well yes, you're more expensive than someone who probably won't need to take statins due to genetics at some point. This sounds like an end run around the "can't charge people more for preexisting conditions" part of obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
The jury is still out on whether or not high cholesterol causes heart disease
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:This sounds almost like they do the weigh-ins and blood test results publicly for everyone to see and hear. That can't possibly be true, right? Or did your co-worker tell you about this after the fact? She told us about it in our training class, just as kind of a PSA to our new hires. It is kind of a cattle call, though. You pick your time that's convenient for a fasting blood draw (since I like breakfast and get into work at 7AM, I schedule for before 8AM), show up, get your blood prick, pressure checked, weigh in, measurements, etc. The nurses try not to say anything about it out loud, but the privacy isn't great either, especially since they do it in a former training lab meant to hold 25 people. Why it's there and not, say, the 400+ person person capacity cafeteria seating area that gets shut down all the time for other events, I don't know. A few days later, you get an email telling you to log on to a website where you get your results. If it's good, $300 dumped into HSA. If not, you can either do the "reasonable exception" (HAHAHA), or forfeit. Everyone gets $500 minimum in the HSA no matter what, and then you can get up to $250 reimbursement for healthy activities (gym membership, weight watchers, marathon entry fees), and most years they just drop $300 in there in January as a "thanks for the profitable year, guys" reward to everyone. I'm sure that nets them a tax break somewhere, but it's still ok. The deductible is $1350 for a single person, so someone who games it right and only has themselves to worry about can get enough dumped on their card to have a zero deductible. But the games are kind of irritating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well yes, you're more expensive than someone who probably won't need to take statins due to genetics at some point. Pretty much. Hell, I'm expensive *anyways* because of asthma. My Advair? Around $400. The funny thing is that my daily activities would probably net me awards in any workplace healthcare program that they lay out - but if they judge solely on numbers, I'd be screwed. I do wonder if they'd have some sort of override system, like a note from an actual doctor. Qu Appelle fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The jury is still out on whether or not high cholesterol causes heart disease Yeah. Every woman in my family has had horrifying cholesterol based on the standard ranges and they all live into their 100s anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
I'm reading up on corporate "wellness" programs out of curiosity and stumbled on this delightful little nugget:quote:Employees can qualify for a drawing if they complete a personal health assessment, biometric screening, a behavior change campaign, or a challenge. All employees do not get an incentive for completing the target behavior because that leads to entitlement. lol gently caress off. E: more quote:It is important to understand that the financial impact on the employee is the same for all types of incentives: employees simply make more money if they meet the requirements of the employer’s program, regardless of whether it is as a result of receiving a reward, such as a reduction in insurance premiums, or avoiding a penalty. However, it can make a big difference how the incentive is designed in terms of participation: companies report only a 20% to 40% increase in employee participation if the incentive is designed as a reward, compared with a 70% increase if the incentive is a penalty or surcharge.(7) Great, can't wait to see an explosion of punitive health incentive programs from employers! E: haha loving hell quote:A telling example of how wellness programs can invade employee privacy was the abortive attempt by the Pennsylvania State University to establish a wellness program in July of 2013. The program required employees get a check-up from their doctor, submit to several biometric tests and complete an online questionnaire that asked, among other things, “their plans to become pregnant, about how frequently they drank too much alcohol, and about whether they had experienced problems with violence, depression, or a divorce or separation.”(20) Failure to answer any question or fulfill the other requirements of the program would cost the employee $1,200 per year. Also to whoever above said that employee wellness programs are a clever way to revert to underwriting, you get a gold star! quote:The ACA was supposed to prohibit health plans from refusing to insure individuals based on their health status or risk factors or charging them less than healthier enrollees. (HIPAA already had prohibited this practice in the case of group health plans such as those offered by larger employers; the ACA extended the prohibition to individual and small group plans.) Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I suspect that the ‘workout logs’ thing is kind of overblown and the West Virginia teacher is hamming it up for dramatic effect. What is likely the case is that if she doesn’t do a moderate amount of physical activity and log it with a free pedometer or automatically on her phone’s pedometer, she won’t receive a $500 credit. If she only does a fraction of the steps requirement, she will only get a fraction of the credit. NIXON: Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Wellness incentive programs are dumpster fires that almost always ending up costing more than they save. There's a reason we don't push for them in our fully insured lines of business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Reik posted:Wellness incentive programs are dumpster fires that almost always ending up costing more than they save. Generally the value prop for those types of programs rely heavily on savings due to reduction in absenteeism and presenteeism and the benefits of employee engagement. It's rarely the (more easily measurable) hard dollar impact on health insurance costs that drives those decisions from an employer standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Generally the value prop for those types of programs rely heavily on savings due to reduction in absenteeism and presenteeism and the benefits of employee engagement. It's rarely the (more easily measurable) hard dollar impact on health insurance costs that drives those decisions from an employer standpoint. That would make more sense. We don't really have access to absenteeism/presenteeism data on our end, so I guess they just do those studies internally or with their consulting house?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Reik posted:That would make more sense. We don't really have access to absenteeism/presenteeism data on our end, so I guess they just do those studies internally or with their consulting house? Generally, but only the largest employers really have large enough numbers to give the results any kind of statistical plausibility. Other employers tend to be followers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Who wants to read some infuriating tales from inside the pre-Obamacare health insurance/medical billing industries?quote:This is one of the strangest circumstances, but I encountered it a lot: Sometimes when a mother and father split up, it was common for the mother to get sole custody, and the father to be required by law to get insurance for the kid as part of his child support. If he violates that, he can go to jail, be held in contempt. But we screened children just as we screened adults. quote:I didn’t really deal with patients by that point. It was just me in a cubicle on the phone arguing with Blue Cross. They would deny for the most ridiculous reasons. Their favorite game to play was to ignore my numerous claim submissions. Then once the filing date passed they would tell me I missed the filing deadline even though I could prove I had submitted it several times on time. They just don’t want to pay. quote:The focus was always to expand, and on profits. Working with insurance you get calls from people just crying: I just got my bill, I can’t pay this. And there was a process, patients would sit down with our financial services and go through their paychecks and things. But sometimes I swear people were denied simply because the executive director in the billing department didn’t like the tone of the person on the phone. And you know the executives got huge bonuses, enough to buy a car. And people are not getting the health care they need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
aha, yes. pre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Kill everyone in insurance imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Kill everyone in insurance imo This but slightly less ironically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 22:28
|
|
