Anyone Else's Health Insurance Going up Next Year?

[Malerin]

My district just got a heads-up from Anthem Blue Cross: expect a 10-15% increase this coming year. Their reasoning: they have to cover the cost of keeping "kids" on parents' insurance policies until they're 26.

Anyone else hearing things like this?

[mortimer]

Do you have a source for "their reasoning"?

[tyr_13]

My coverage expanded and my costs stayed the same.

[Malerin]

Do you have a source for "their reasoning"?

No, this is just what I heard from our payroll person at the district office.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I'd imagine most everyone's health insurance goes up year over year... health care costs are rising pretty quickly. The 2009 projection for 2010 was an increase of 9% (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55H5BR20090618). Not sure what it is for 2010-2011, if it's even out yet, but I'd guess it is in that area as well. So an estimate of 10-15% doesn't sound too far off.

[Malerin]

I'd imagine most everyone's health insurance goes up year over year... health care costs are rising pretty quickly. The 2009 projection for 2010 was an increase of 9% (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55H5BR20090618). Not sure what it is for 2010-2011, if it's even out yet, but I'd guess it is in that area as well. So an estimate of 10-15% doesn't sound too far off.

We had no increases this year. The year before was around 6%, I think. We're part of a large group of districts, so it may have a lot to do with the number of claims filed, people coming into the pool, etc. I'm just wondering if anyone else has heard their rates may go up because of some provision in the health reform bill.

[Meadmaker]

Lots of people's health care costs will be going up this year. Of course, that would have happened with or without Obamacare. It might go up a little bit more as a consequence of the new health care legislation, although I am sure that will be a matter of much dispute.

There is one very unfortunate problem if you happen to be a Democratic congressman. Most corporate health care coverage has an open enrollment period, where people choose coverage, and corporations announce plan changes and new rates, in October, just before the elections. In other words, a few weeks before going to the polls, a huge number of people will get hit with higher bills. Those higher bills will be blamed on the Democratic plan to change health coverage.

I still support Obamacare, but even as it was being passed, I wondered if the Democrats backing the plan realized this coincidence, and its implications.

[peptoabysmal]

Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05)

According to this story, ABC cites "rising health care" costs as the reason.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05)

According to this story, ABC cites "rising health care" costs as the reason.


Anthem Blue Cross Withdraws California Rate Hike (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/anthem-blue-cross-withdra_n_557966.html).

Little boo-boo there. Interestingly, the system actually worked here. The state looked at their proposal, thought it was inaccurate, and had an independent review done that found errors.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

We had no increases this year.

You had no increase personally, or the company as a whole didn't? And did your out of pocket or co-pays change at all? It certainly isn't impossible that your group had no increase. Some groups / employers manage their costs well and keep it relatively stable. But it's certainly possible rates were increased and just not passed on to you. Or if you're like where I work, our premiums remained the same, but our potential out of pocket costs went up considerably.


I'm just wondering if anyone else has heard their rates may go up because of some provision in the health reform bill.

I haven't heard much yet. A lot of corporations took substantial non-cash balance sheet hits on their retiree benefits this year due to the change in the tax treatment of the retiree drug subsidy, which will likely result in some substantial changes for people with retirement benefits. But for employees, I haven't see much.

That said, if there is a mandate to cover a whole bunch more people, that's going to cost something. It's hard to get around that. 10%-15% sounds really high to me, though, if they're claiming that the only reason for it is having to cover children. I'm skeptical of that. Many states already had that mandate anyway.

[shawmutt]

Yeah, that's part of the issue with the past health care system. My health care goes up every year, regardless of whoever the president is. Let's try and pin that on current legislation--that's not partisan hackery.

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, um, health care goes up every year. It's just that next year they're going to opportunistically claim that the reason is the new health care bill, even though since everyone will have coverage, the cost will be spread amongst millions more people, and thus the price should actually fall.

[Malerin]

Anthem Blue Cross Withdraws California Rate Hike (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/anthem-blue-cross-withdra_n_557966.html).

Little boo-boo there. Interestingly, the system actually worked here. The state looked at their proposal, thought it was inaccurate, and had an independent review done that found errors.

If I remember, that was a proposed increase on individual policy holders.

[Malerin]

You had no increase personally, or the company as a whole didn't? And did your out of pocket or co-pays change at all? It certainly isn't impossible that your group had no increase. Some groups / employers manage their costs well and keep it relatively stable. But it's certainly possible rates were increased and just not passed on to you. Or if you're like where I work, our premiums remained the same, but our potential out of pocket costs went up considerably.

Our coverage and costs didn't change. Prior to that though, we saw years with double digit increases. My school district is pooled with a bunch of other districts. Perhaps we had an influx of young teachers last year.




I haven't heard much yet. A lot of corporations took substantial non-cash balance sheet hits on their retiree benefits this year due to the change in the tax treatment of the retiree drug subsidy, which will likely result in some substantial changes for people with retirement benefits. But for employees, I haven't see much.

That said, if there is a mandate to cover a whole bunch more people, that's going to cost something. It's hard to get around that. 10%-15% sounds really high to me, though, if they're claiming that the only reason for it is having to cover children. I'm skeptical of that. Many states already had that mandate anyway.

I think California mandated kids to be covered up to 23. And you had to be in college. I had a 21 yr old student teacher who stayed in school after she got her credential to remain on her parent's plan.

I don't mind paying extra if more kids are covered. What else can an insurance company do other than raise rates when they'r forced to cover more people? Like a lot of people here have said though: Democrats are going to take the heat for it.

[WildCat]

Yeah, um, health care goes up every year. It's just that next year they're going to opportunistically claim that the reason is the new health care bill, even though since everyone will have coverage, the cost will be spread amongst millions more people, and thus the price should actually fall.
And then unicorns will fly in from the magic mountain pulling a chariot with Elvis inside.

[Meadmaker]

Yeah, um, health care goes up every year. It's just that next year they're going to opportunistically claim that the reason is the new health care bill, even though since everyone will have coverage, the cost will be spread amongst millions more people, and thus the price should actually fall.

I don't see how this can be, at least in the short run, and with respect to individual companies.

The fact is that the "26 year old" rule goes into effect this year, but very few other rules go into effect this year. That means my company will have more beneficiaries on the books, but will not have any additional payers. Costs go up.

Will they go up a lot because of that? I doubt it. 26 year olds don't go to the doctor much unless they are in really bad shape, and most of them aren't. However, it can't be free.

In the event that the proposed savings you cite from universal coverage ever appear, they sure aren't going to appear this year, but some of the additional cost will appear this year.

[peptoabysmal]

Anthem Blue Cross Withdraws California Rate Hike (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/anthem-blue-cross-withdra_n_557966.html).

Little boo-boo there. Interestingly, the system actually worked here. The state looked at their proposal, thought it was inaccurate, and had an independent review done that found errors.

I feel safer already :D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was on a public health insurance program, but I just got a letter that the it is shutting down. Of course, that has just as much to do with the economy overall and the budget.

[boooeee]

My district just got a heads-up from Anthem Blue Cross: expect a 10-15% increase this coming year. Their reasoning: they have to cover the cost of keeping "kids" on parents' insurance policies until they're 26.

Anyone else hearing things like this?


The "26" rule will increase costs slightly, but nowhere near 10-15%. Sadly, 10-15% is pretty much par for the course for healthcare trend in the US.

Anthem is feeding you a line if they attribute the entirety of the increase to that (fairly minor) change.

[WildCat]

The real rate increases will come once the full effect of the bill comes to fruition in the next few years. All the plans will be "Cadilllac plans", and will have a price tag reflecting that.

All the mandatory coverages, no co-pay doctor visits, no co-pay tests and screenings... these will have a cost, and not a small one either.

[Meadmaker]

The real rate increases will come once the full effect of the bill comes to fruition in the next few years. All the plans will be "Cadilllac plans", and will have a price tag reflecting that.


I've heard this said, but I don't believe it. I know that none of the options available from my employer meet the definition of a "cadillac plan". Every time I've seen someone make a similar claim, when asked for information supporting that claim it is always something they heard from someone in the HR department, or some other variation on an unsubstantiated rumor.


ETA: FWIW, I think the whole concept of "cadillac plans" and different levels of taxation for those plans is stupid, but that's a separate issue. I also think that the absolute worst thing about health care in the United States is that my employer has anything at all to do with it, but that, too, is a separate issue.

[Dorian Gray]

I don't see how this can be, at least in the short run, and with respect to individual companies.

The fact is that the "26 year old" rule goes into effect this year, but very few other rules go into effect this year. That means my company will have more beneficiaries on the books, but will not have any additional payers. Costs go up.

Will they go up a lot because of that? I doubt it. 26 year olds don't go to the doctor much unless they are in really bad shape, and most of them aren't. However, it can't be free.

In the event that the proposed savings you cite from universal coverage ever appear, they sure aren't going to appear this year, but some of the additional cost will appear this year.
Thing is, though, the law says that the insurance companies must cover 26-year-olds, but you certainly don't have to continue covering them. Thus, if the costs go up for you, it's completely your choice.

In the meantime, expect an increase in cost that is in line with the increase in cost that happens every year.

[Dorian Gray]

And then unicorns will fly in from the magic mountain pulling a chariot with Elvis inside.Let me guess... you have a medical marijuana prescription?

[Tiktaalik]

I'm with Anthem Blue Cross (not in CA) & have heard nothing about a rate increase.

[Meadmaker]

Thing is, though, the law says that the insurance companies must cover 26-year-olds, but you certainly don't have to continue covering them. Thus, if the costs go up for you, it's completely your choice.



That's not how company plans work. I have a choice of a few plans, and within each plan, a few options. The options, identical for all plan are No coverage, employee only, employee and spouse, and employee and family. Within the last option, you can have one kid or twelve kids, but your premium will stay the same. This is typical of corporate plans.

Therefore, the number of insured individuals will go up. The number of contributing employees will remain constant. The cost to the company will go up, and some of that will be passed on to the employees.

It's conceivable that they will change the rules so that employees who have newly eligible dependents will pay the full cost for those dependents, as opposed to the subsidies we pay now.

One way or another, there's no free lunch. Some people will be covered that were not previously covered. Someone is going to pay for the cost of their care.

[WildCat]

Let me guess... you have a medical marijuana prescription?
No, but I can smell bovine excrement a mile away. And the notion that costs will go down is a great big gigantic steaming pile of bovine excrement.

[ponderingturtle]

My district just got a heads-up from Anthem Blue Cross: expect a 10-15% increase this coming year. Their reasoning: they have to cover the cost of keeping "kids" on parents' insurance policies until they're 26.

Anyone else hearing things like this?

And they have been going up that kind of percentage every year anyway. Now they just have something else to pass it off on.

[ponderingturtle]

Our coverage and costs didn't change. Prior to that though, we saw years with double digit increases. My school district is pooled with a bunch of other districts. Perhaps we had an influx of young teachers last year.

Or you are just now seeing the increases that you haven't seen in a while.

[jimbob]

Thing is, though, the law says that the insurance companies must cover 26-year-olds, but you certainly don't have to continue covering them. Thus, if the costs go up for you, it's completely your choice.

In the meantime, expect an increase in cost that is in line with the increase in cost that happens every year.

Is this true? How does this work? Wouldn't stopping coverage be included a "not covering" these people?

(Genuine questions not rhetorical ones)

[DavidJames]

My portion of my company provided health care coverage goes up every year. Even when my oldest went off my plan, it still went up enough to more then offset that reduction.

Who's fault? That's easy, it's their fault. You know, them, the other guys.

[Puppycow]

Anthem Blue Cross Withdraws California Rate Hike (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/anthem-blue-cross-withdra_n_557966.html).

Little boo-boo there. Interestingly, the system actually worked here. The state looked at their proposal, thought it was inaccurate, and had an independent review done that found errors.

The decision also came one day after Anthem's parent, Wellpoint, Inc. of Indianapolis, announced its first-quarter profit soared by 51 percent.
:eye-poppi
Pretty obvious they were just being greedy then.

ETA: probably the same explanation for why they raised Malerin's rates too.

[Puppycow]

Within the last option, you can have one kid or twelve kids, but your premium will stay the same.

Those wonderful subsidies for large families. I just looove paying other people to have lots of kids. :a2:

[MattusMaximus]

My coverage expanded and my costs stayed the same.

Ditto. I've got eye care on my plan now, where I didn't have it before :)

[McHrozni]

Yeah, um, health care goes up every year. It's just that next year they're going to opportunistically claim that the reason is the new health care bill, even though since everyone will have coverage, the cost will be spread amongst millions more people, and thus the price should actually fall.

If, and only if, those people used less than they were paying in that period. That's not a certainty.
Secondly, if the bill also causes more people to seek treatment, which is likely, the medical costs will certainly go up, causing a further increase in insurance premiums. This aspect is almost certain.

Another issue: since buying insurance is now mandatory, insurance companies as a whole could (illegally) agree to rise rates by, say, 5% across the board. If you don't like that you can pay the fine.

McHrozni

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My district just got a heads-up from Anthem Blue Cross: expect a 10-15% increase this coming year. Their reasoning: they have to cover the cost of keeping "kids" on parents' insurance policies until they're 26.

Anyone else hearing things like this?

No

[Malerin]

Finally found something on it:

Last year (2009-2010) SISC “used their reserves” because of the economic conditions to keep rates the same as the previous year (2008-2009). This year they were unable to do so because of “rising costs” although they contend that they also used “some reserves” to mitigate the premium increases that they contend would have been 5% higher without their action.
http://www.pasoteachers.org/component/content/article/25-2010-2011-health-benefits-update.html

[Meadmaker]

Is this true? How does this work? Wouldn't stopping coverage be included a "not covering" these people?

(Genuine questions not rhetorical ones)

I think what he is saying is that the insurer must provide a plan that covers 21-26 year old children, but there is nothing in the law that says the 26 year olds so covered have to be covered for free, or have to be covered under the same terms as 16 year old children. In other words, they can charge the full, complete, cost for adult children, instead of the subsidized cost typically found in a corporate plan.

Therefore, the insurer has to offer the insurance, but the insured (the parent) doesn't have to pay for it, and if the parent doesn't pay, the kid doesn't get the insurance.

That puts corporations in a bind, though. They have to either change the terms of their plans, or pass the cost on to somebody. The coverage isn't free.

FWIW, I think anything that treats anyone 21 years of age or older as if they were a child, in any sense of the word, is an absolutely awful idea.