Posts Tagged ‘aetna health insurance’

Saturday, January 29th, 2011

Aetna insurance is withdrawing from Colorado individual health insurance market effective 2/1/11

Aetna health insurance no longer offers Aetna Advantage Plans for Individuals, Families and the Self Employed plans in Colorado health insurance.

Why is Aetna health insurance making this change?
After reviewing the Aetna portfolio of Individual health insurance plans in Colorado, Aetna insurance determined they can no longer meet the needs of the customers while remaining competitive in the individual health insurance market.

While this decision was not easy, a number of factors were considered before making this important decision. In keeping with the best interests of Aetna insurance customers, Aetna believes there are other insurers who can better meet their needs.

Impacting to existing members
Existing individual health insurance plans will receive one final renewal period. Depending on the plans’ renewal dates, some existing plans may not receive a full 12 month coverage period on renewal.

Plans with anniversary dates on or between February 1, 2011 and July 31, 2011

  • Will renew each plan for a further twelve (12) month period and coverage will cease at the end of the renewal period.
  • For example, if a plan’s anniversary date is on April 1, 2011, there will be one further renewal period of twelve months and coverage will end on March 31, 2012.

Plans with anniversary dates on or between August 1, 2011 and January 31, 2012

  • Will renew each plan until July 31, 2012. Effective August 1, 2012, all coverage under the plans will end.
  • For example, if a plan’s anniversary date is on September 1, 2011, the plan will receive one further renewal until July 31, 2012.

How will individual pre-65 members be notified of this change?

  • All existing Aetna insurance policyholders will be notified by mail on or about February 1, 2011.

While Aetna will continue to administer their individual health plan for at least another year, policyholders are strongly encouraged to seek alternative health insurance coverage prior to their policy termination date indicated above.

Aetna health insurance appreciates your understanding regarding this decision.

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

Individual health insurance is not an easy thing to understand greatly because of the tremendous amount of health plan options that are out there.  The comparison between different companies and different types of individual health insurance plans is a challenge.  Most individuals just simply want basic private insurance.  The problem is that not everyone understands what that means.

Deductible
Individuals think that the only thing that matters in individual health insurance is the deductible.  Sure, deductibles are very important, but looking further into the plans is necessary.  For example, is a $3500 deductible plan at 20% coinsurance better than a $5000 deductible plan at 0% coinsurance?  Ask that question to the normal individual and they will say yes.  The correct answer is sometimes.  The reason is, the 3500 plan in most situations has a higher out of pocket maximum, where the 5000 plan has the lower out of pocket maximum.  Sure some individuals  have the time to go read about it and figure it out for themselves, but the average person will just simply go with the lowest deductible.

Price
The price for individual health insurance is not the most important thing.  Understanding the plan is.  If an individual health plan is a lot cheaper then all of the other compared plans there is always something wrong with it.  For example, Aetna insurance has what is called a value plan.  They are great, but you can only go see your doctor 5 times a year.  That may be fine for a lot of individuals , but what about a 50 year old.  Brokers are so important for these situations.  Aetna and most companies have this option, to spend less but also get less.  It is great, but people should know the difference.

Providers
Most individuals have a family doctor or someone in mind that they would like to see on a regular basis when purchasing individual health insurance.   The thing is most people think that their doctor will be in network no matter what, because they are purchasing a PPO plan where they can go wherever they would like to go.  The word “in- network” is very important, because it is the difference in being able to pay around $35 for a doctor’s visit or having to meet your deductible to see your regular doctor.  All the big insurance companies, Golden Rule, Aetna, Coventry, Humana, and Cigna all have a physician look up tool on their web pages.  So why not use them to your advantage.  I make sure that every one of my clients can use that free resource before they purchase an individual health insurance plan.  Imagine if a person is on vacation and they need to find a doctor fast, most people will panic. My clients will know that they can go to a computer and find an address and a number quicker than calling the back of their card.

Students
Another place where individuals are getting taken advantage of are in the school plans.  Sure something is better than not having anything at all.  However, college kids aren’t reading into these policies and how much coverage they really have.  Some of these health plans only allow a person to use $50,000 at the hospital.  That’s just not enough.  Especially when you can purchase a health plan with unlimited coverage for the same price by getting individual health insurance though Easy To Insure ME.  It is very hard for people to understand why they should seek advice from a professional. This is the exact reason why they should.

Easy To Insure ME
Individual health insurance plans are similar in many ways, finding the right one is the challenge.  So when trying to find the best plan for you at the best price, seeking a professional is key. Finding a good broker is as easy as clicking the link to EasyToInsureME.com.  All you will have to do is put in your basic information in the top right hand corner of the home page, and a professional will contact you within 24 hours. It is that easy.  Easy to insure me on the web.

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

Congress has once again left town for a recess, until June 7, allowing two key health benefit items to expire at the end of May. One is the “doc fix,” which is needed to stave off a pending 21 percent cut in Medicare physician reimbursements. Aetna favors a multiple-year change to bring stability and certainty to the Medicare Advantage market. While the House passed a bill to extend the fix for 19 months until the end of 2011, the Senate left town without addressing the issue. Although the current short-term fix lapsed on Monday, CMS has alerted its contractors to “hold” claims for the first 10 days of June in the hopes that the “fix” will be fixed by June 10.

Similarly, the House approved, but the Senate did not, a jobs and extenders bill dealing with other expiring items. However, the House-approved package does not contain an extension of the enhanced Medicaid FMAP formula desired by the states, nor does it include an extension of eligibility for the COBRA 65 percent-subsidy program. It also expired at the end of May.

The issue of whether a non-federal government has the authority to tell an employer how to administer a self-funded health plan has been heading to the U.S. Supreme Court for well over a year. The case comes from California where the 9th Circuit ruled in 2008 in favor of the City of San Francisco by deciding that ERISA was not a barrier to San Francisco’s “play or pay” law.  Since the 4th Circuit had ruled just the opposite a few years before in a Maryland case, the conflicting outcomes makes this case ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court. Late last week, the Solicitor General’s office recommended that the Supreme Court not take up the case because, in part, the new health care reform law may dramatically reduce the number of state or local governments following San Francisco’s lead. The SG’s position is unfortunately influential, but it is not determinative. Aetna prefers that the Court take up the case as the ERISA preemption question presented is so fundamental to the employer-sponsored marketplace. Aetna also believe ERISA preemption would be re-affirmed.

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

The legislature adjourned for 2010 after a number of negative Georgia health insurance bills were defeated, including a proposed tax on health plans and restrictions on rental networks. Among the legislation that did pass was, most significantly, a bill that would apply state prompt-pay laws to self-funded plans. The bill also contains an extension of time for payment of paper claims and a compliance threshold of 95 percent before any fines are imposed. Several interested parties, including Aetna, are working with the Governor’s office to encourage a veto of the bill, but this is unlikely.

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

The legislature adjourned for 2010 with no significant Florida health insurance bills passing. The only exception was in the area of Medicaid, where Aetna helped pass legislation regarding provider-sponsored networks. Legislation that was defeated includes mandates for coverage of Down’s Syndrome and other developmental disabilities, and problematic pharmacy legislation.

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Delaware health insurance debate resumed last week on a bill that would prohibit health insurers from denying coverage for medically necessary procedures and tests. The bill was voted out of committee with the understanding that significant changes are needed before a full vote occurs. The Department of Insurance presented testimony applauding the intent of the sponsor but reserving full support, indicating there is benefit in allowing preauthorization to limit unnecessary medical testing. Additionally the Comptroller General provided testimony on the potential cost impact to the state health benefits plan.  An actual dollar figure has not yet been quantified. Aetna, along with the other plans, and Med Solutions continue to express serious concerns with the bill.  The legislature will be in recess for the next two weeks, returning June 1.

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

The General Assembly in Colorado health insurance recently adjourned a 2010 session that was focused heavily on health care issues. Outgoing Governor Bill Ritter succeeded in his goal of leaving a health care reform legacy with the passage of unisex rating in the individual market, a plain language requirement for insurance forms and contracts, an all-payer database and the creation of a task force to develop standard coding and edits for claims. Although the oral chemotherapy mandate passed, the industry was successful in helping to defeat a bill that would have prohibited carriers from setting rates for non-covered services and one making the wrongful denial of a claim an unfair claim practice. Aetna took a lead role in reaching a compromise on a bill that would have prohibited subrogation.

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

As the comment period ended with respect to medical loss ratio (MLR) regulations, a flurry of letters were sent last week to both the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to Aetna health insurance and other insurers, several employer groups have written with comments and concerns, including the American Benefits Council, the National Coalition on Benefits and the National Retail Federation. In all cases, the comments point out that it’s important to assure that positive, quality-oriented elements of health care, such as health information technology, disease management and wellness programs, fraud and abuse regimens, all should count as quality measures when calculating a company’s MLR. The National Retail Federation in particular noted the need for a national MLR for large employer business, a position well embraced by Aetna.

In the never-ending roll-out of proposed health care reform regulations, the Administration last week published yet another set of Interim Final Regulations. This set deals with coverage for dependent children up to age 26 pursuant to the requirement that insurers and group plans allow kids to stay on their parents’ policies or coverage until age 26.  Comments are due by August 11, but the rule is effective July 12, 2010. Many insurers have already announced that they will implement this provision early (e.g., May 31 for Aetna) to cover graduating college students who may have otherwise faced the summer without insurance. Whether self-funded employers follow suit is not as clear. Also, with the temporary fix of Medicare physician reimbursement rates set to run out the end of May, the House is expected to take up a more lasting fix sometime this week. If the House proceeds as expected it will attempt to install a five-year suspension of any physician rate cuts. Aetna supports the change, as it will give this market predictability.

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

While the underlying cost of health insurance services remains an under-reported issue, there are signs that this may be changing. The California legislature, for example, is beginning to turn its attention to rising hospital and provider costs, and not just the rising cost of premiums. Just in time, the U.S. Justice Department announced last week that California’s largest health care purchasers can proceed with an extensive study of the costs of care at more than 300 hospitals statewide. The California Hospital Association tried to block the project claiming antitrust concerns, but the Justice Department rejected the claim. Only by addressing costs throughout the health care system will the nation begin to slow the overall cost of health care and truly deliver on the promise of health care reform. Transparency remains a very important part of the equation.

Federal
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations, as citizens, to spend corporate funds on political advertising advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate. In an effort to stave off an anticipated onslaught of corporate money infusion in this year’s elections, the Democratic majority introduced legislation last week to curb any such corporate activity. The core component of the legislation would require corporations (and unions) in the name of transparency to disclose their spending on political advertisement. This legislation is very likely to be a key subject of debate for the rest of the legislative year as Democrats seek to rally consumers and other groups in favor of the bill, and Republicans use the measure as a rallying cry against what they view as an infringement on the First Amendment.  It is not at all clear, at this stage, whether this bill has legs or whether corporations will even take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling. What is clear is that the issue will further drive a wedge between the two parties.

In response to WellPoint’s proposed rate increase in the California individual health insurance market in January (now rescinded), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had proposed legislation to establish a Federal Rate Authority to both review “potentially unreasonable” increases in health insurance rates (in conjunction with the states) and to endow the federal government with new regulatory powers with respect to the Authority’s findings. Although this provision was not included in health care reform, Senator Feinstein now is poised to offer her bill as an amendment to other legislation moving through the Senate — starting with the financial regulatory reform measure currently before the Senate. The Feinstein proposal would further erode the traditional role of the states with respect to insurance matters and was opposed by Aetna and the insurance industry. Aetna will oppose this new tactic as well.