<p>
</p>
<p>But is that because your employer is subsidizing part of the health insurance?</p>
<p>If so, that means your company will now be spending more money to insurance kids up to the age of 26. That money will mean either less profits, smaller wages increases, or they pass more costs to the employee in health insurance.</p>
<p>This is a great benefit, and extending the period that parent’s insurance will cover children will not only keep kids healthy but give them greater opportunity to explore careers, volunteer, travel, etc., without putting the entire family at financial risk for catastrophic illness. Those that try to paint this one as a mistake – well, they have some other ax to grind…</p>
<p>I don’t know why, but there seems to be difficulty understanding that your kids are NOT going to be covered for free until they are 26. The cost of the parents’ plan is going to go up.</p>
<p>Kid don’t get “free” health care coverage just because some politician says so. Nobody gets “free” health care coverage. Somebody pays.</p>
<p>Yeah…18-26 is pretty benign except for accidents …and mental health…and substance abuse…</p>
<p>Bluebayou…the new federal legistration TRUMPS the union contracts. That much I already know. All employers are required to comply with the provisions of the new health care initiatives…period. The reason I’m going to call union council is that my district is not forthcoming in what they want us to do during our open enrollment period which ends June 15. By that time, I need to elect either two person or family coverage. If my daughter is going to be covered next year (yes…I will pay the difference in the costs)…I NEED TO KNOW so I can elect the family plan. My employer is not giving us any information…but they expect us to make decisions blindly. If I don’t get info by May 1, I’m calling the union lawyer…who can intervene on behalf of ALL of the under 26 year olds whose parents want them on the employer offered plan.</p>
<p>“I don’t know why, but there seems to be difficulty understanding that your kids are NOT going to be covered for free until they are 26. The cost of the parents’ plan is going to go up.”</p>
<p>If I am understanding this correctly, coverage for a non-student is guaranteed but someone (parent or young adult) now has to pay the employer part of this coverage.</p>
<p>NYS already passed a similar law last year know as the Age 29 law last year. The law states:</p>
<p>The young adult or his or her parent will be responsible for a separate premium for the young adult option (over and above what the parent pays for the group coverage).
[Coverage</a> Expansion Through Age 29 - “Young Adult Option" - FAQs](<a href=“http://www.ins.state.ny.us/faqs/faqs_S6030_Age29_young.htm]Coverage”>http://www.ins.state.ny.us/faqs/faqs_S6030_Age29_young.htm)</p>
<p>It is my assumption that the federal Age 26 law will work the same way. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>At this point my employer is saying that the grads have to come off the plan in May and won’t be able to come back on until January (when our new policy year starts). I am arguing that we should follow the lead of the big insurers (we are self-insured but have an administrator which is BCBS) and let the college grads stay on the plan. I’m not sure I will prevail. I will probably get the $400 COBRA for my son until he gets coverage at his new job, which won’t be until the fall (he is starting work in August). I don’t want any lapse in coverage for him.</p>
<p>Okay, a google search shows that I may have to correct myself!</p>
<p>[Empire</a> BlueCross BlueShield Announces Plan to Extend Health Care Coverage for Many Young Americans – NEW YORK, April 19 /PRNewswire/ --](<a href=“http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/empire-bluecross-blueshield-announces-plan-to-extend-health-care-coverage-for-many-young-americans-91535094.html]Empire”>Empire BlueCross BlueShield Announces Plan to Extend Health Care Coverage for Many Young Americans)</p>
<p>I KNOW I will have to pay for family coverage…my family plan is what will be continued IF my soon to be graduate is allowed to remain on my policy.</p>
<p>Re: self insured…the self insured lobby did NOT prevail in their effort to be excluded from the provisions of this new legislation. SO…the coverage for kids up to age 26 begins on September 23…six months from the date of the signing of the bill. </p>
<p>There is so much confusion about this…some folks, like me…have open enrollment from May to June 15. If this isn’t clarified now…does this mean I have to wait until May 2011 to get this resolved…I DON’T think so…the coverage provision per federal legislation begins Sept 23…I’m just trying to figure out how to make that happen. Wish my employer was working as hard to figure this out as I am.</p>
<p>I plan to check with my employer as well as calling my insurance company tomorrow. As we have a three month grace period from graduation (fortunately) anyway, my question is really about whether there is an increased cost for this insurance to the employee.</p>
<p>interesteddad-
I am not having difficulty understanding that coverage for up to age 26 won’t be free.
In my specific case, I was ‘allowed’ to keep dependent son on my employer plan (which was jointly funded by employer and me) until 23, whether student or not.</p>
<p>I am hoping that I will be ‘allowed’ to re-add him till age 26, for whatever the family premium will be. NOT a free ride. Just superior coverage with same in network docs, facilities etc as rest of family. If not, we will continue him on individual high deductible plan.</p>
<p>And, IMHO, the so called health ‘risks’ of a 24-26 yr adult male are not different than those of a 18-23 year old adult male. So, exactly why would reinstating this age group cause the family premium to soar?</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents of course, as the money/financial manager of our family for 30ish years and a health care professional for more.</p>
<p>Oh, and my self insured employer is doing the
“we’re presently evaluating the situation” step.</p>
<p>We have open enrollment in October with changes effective for Jan 1.
I feel for folks like thumper who NEED to address this now since their open enrollment is now.</p>
<p>In our state there is also a provision for adding coverage IF someone is not going to have coverage. For example…DD could be added to DH’s plan (if he had one) at any time…if she would not otherwise have coverage. It does NOT have to be open enrollment for this to happen. Seems to me if this provision is active on September 23, the open enrollment period should not be a factor at all. BUT that is the type of clarification that is not forthcoming. DH did get something from HR at his work and it was VERY clear that this provision began at the end of September. NO exceptions.</p>
<p>Thumper: The link that I gave above was dated April 19th. I’m wondering if insurance plans are not changing their mantras by the day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thumper, I’ll take your word for it, but you are still missing the point. The federal law does not take effect until ~Oct 1. Thus, there is nothing to “trump” now. Back to your union rep to negotiate, no?. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The costs of family plans will have to go up because those family plans are now mandated by law to cover more people. The price was based on some actuarial calculation of the average number of people on an average family plan. If that goes from, for example, 2.5 people to 3.5 people, the cost is going to go up accordingly.</p>
<p>I’m not saying the option to keep a kid on their parents’ plan is a bad option. I’m just saying that there are no free lunches here. Big picture, it probably would have made more sense to put all these uninsured kids on some kind of bare-bones high-deductable catastrophic coverage plan.</p>
<p>Our son has pre-existing medical conditions, so going to a cheap private policy to cover just the big things was not an option. Even if they would have accepted him, they likely wouldn’t pay for anything connected to the pre-existing conditions, and the cost would have been tremendous. So we have him on COBRA for the time being. Since we have to pay the employer’s portion as well as our own cost, his insurance is costing us more than the entire rest of the family combined. So the changes are a big help to us. Even if the cost of family coverage goes up a bit because of this, we are still well ahead.</p>
<p>My understanding is that this coverage applies to any plan years that start six months after the law was signed, hence somewhere around September/October. Our next plan year starts January 1, 2011, and so that’s when he can go back under our family insurance. If your next plan year starts before that magic date though, as far as the law is concerned, I think you might be stuck having to wait until your following plan year rolls around (mid-2011). That does make some sense to me. The law recognizes that insurance companies need some time to get ready for the changes/figure out how to implement. In addition, takes some time to re-calculate/negotiate new rates with the employer to account for the added cost of covering more people. And can’t implement those new rates until the beginning of a plan year. As much as I don’t care for the attitude and practices of some insurance companies, I don’t think it would be fair to implement right away and have them eat the extra cost themselves for that interim period.</p>
<p>I don’t think the insurance cost for a single, healthy person working for a large employer will go up disproportunately as a result of the law. That is because they are already in a large pool of young and old. A single, healthy young person is likely paying the same as a single, unhealthy old person at a large employer. Hence, the young person is already subsidizing the health costs of the old person in that pool. Where it might make a difference is in the private individual insurance market. In that case, the young are not already subsidizing the old. Each is paying a rate that is commensurate with their own risk. I think the new law will cause the single, healthy person rates to go up in that market since it places specific limits on the premium differences that can be charged to the old versus the young. I’m not sure that is such a bad thing though. Places additional burden on the young, but someday they will be old and will benefit from it themselves. No different than large employer pools now.</p>
<p>OK, interesteddad, uncle.</p>
<p>So, yes, increase the family plan premium by some new magic number vs the old magic number. For my family, and probably many others, would still offer a vastly superior option over the COBRA option of $550/month for a healthy 24 yr old.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree.</p>
<p>Although this age group as a whole has lower medical bills than older people do, an individual person of this age could easily get sick or injured tomorrow and run up large medical bills, just as an older person could.</p>
<p>Nobody of any age should be without health insurance.</p>
<p>Moondogguy is correct. It depends on when your plan year begins. Most, but not all, are January 1. So- Sept 23 is not a magic number. </p>
<p>I also agree that comprehensive coverage is a good idea. There are lots of things that can happen to young adults, including orthopedic things. My son also has pre-existing conditions, so COBRA is our best option unless I can influence my employer (I am the lawyer supporting HR 
) to let the grads stay on the plan.</p>