<p>The student run WUSTLs newspaper once again protest the university policy of forcing undergraduate students to pay a health insurance fee even when every student (except a few internationals) already has health insurance thought their parents. There are only five universities in this country with such policy and none of them are WUSTLs peer schools.
Under the title of Mandatory Health Insurance Needs to be Reevaluated, the editorial forum reveals the need of a change many times ignored from this 5.9 billion endowment institution. Every year thousands of prospects students receive wonderful brochures and unstoppable mail from Wash U but none of them says that their parents would have this hidden fee if they are accepted because the health insurance is mandatory with no way to opt-out. Worst of all, the university doesnt take responsibility for the insurance company actions, kids that received medical attention at the SHS were denied health benefits from the insurance and they received a letter asking for the full amount of the service or they would be dealing with a collector agency.</p>
<p>At the time my oldest went to Wash U, they didn’t have a mandatory health insurance fee. He is a very active alumnus fighting against these policies of hidden fees. Wash U runs SHS with Wash U personnel, and it’s in Wash U property, it shouldn’t charge double for its service to the students that also pay co-pay fees. In average only 1/160 students seeks medical attention outside SHS and only a few of them received bills for over $400, so the business insurance agency-WashU is huge since for a bill of $400 the insurer only pays $ 40 in network or $25 out of network with a deductible of $350.</p>
<p>While we chose to get the college provided insurance because of doctor/hospital choice issues, I agree that mandatory policies are not good.</p>
<p>There is another tricky situation with this insurance, you will need referral from SHS before any visit even in-network, so you pay co-pay and you pay it again and they bill you twice wishing you soon get to the maximum allowed that is only 10,000.</p>
<p>Trapper, I do not know where you get your information but that is simply not true. Both of my D's have self referred to outside specialists when they have felt the SHS was not adequatley addressing health issues affecting them and in each instance, they paid a co-pay and the Wash U insurance covered the remainder of the balance. A physician one of my daughters sought treatment from was affiliated with SLU and except for co-pay, the cost was covered and this was without a referral from SHS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
even when every student (except a few internationals) already has health insurance thought their parents
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NOT TRUE. Many adults are uninsured as are their kids. Many kids are covered under SCHIP plans which do not cover them after age 18. I think that mandatory "if no other coverage exists" is not a bad idea. I would say that upwards of 25-30 are not covered by the time their are juniors/seniors.</p>
<p>oops. double post</p>
<p>I would like to add that I do think each family should be allowed to make the decision for themselves whether to purchase the insurance or not. We obviously have had very good experiences with this insurance. </p>
<p>Given the option, we would most definately opt for the insurance in order to give our D's access to health care if they should need to seek health care for a reason they would wish to keep to themselves. As much as I would like to think my D's would feel free to come to us with any health concerns, there may arise a time when they prefer to keep a condition to themselves. I would much prefer they have the option of seeking health care, knowing they can do so privately rather than avoiding health care because the claim would come to our house where we would see it.</p>
<p>Also, if the health insurance was necessary for only a small percentage of students who were not covered by outside insurance, the cost may become an even greater burden than it already is for those who need it most.</p>
<p>I have a long history with Wash U, my oldest child graduated there, and so two nephews and now I have a niece (freshman). In old times before the mandatory health insurance no one had problems or at least I’ve never heard of any complain. One of my nephews (class 2007) had a knee surgery with some complications, he had the best doctors but the billing process was a nightmare and my sister is still fighting two of the bills with this Lewer Company (actually, the doctor at Barnes Jewish Hospital wasn’t affiliated with the university health insurance company, as strange as it sounds). My niece suffers migraines and she was sent to the hospital to have an MRI, after that, my SIL is the one with headaches with the billing process.
Every student should have a health insurance but the university can't force you to have more than one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every student should have a health insurance but the university can't force you to have more than one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, WashU does require more than one if the editorial in the college paper (p. 7) is correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, if the health insurance was necessary for only a small percentage of students who were not covered by outside insurance, the cost may become an even greater burden than it already is for those who need it most.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what you are suggesting is that families that pay for low deductible PPO at home, which might be roughly equivalent to WashU's plan, MUST also pay for more insurance to cover others? What if these same families are on need-based finaid? Wouldn't it be easier to add it the finaid package "for those that need it most"?</p>
<p>Wash U forces not only students but also staff members and faculty to have his insurance plan no matter how many health plans you already have as primary or dependents. Unless the less privileged don’t have a health plan, this fee is a costly one because external fin aid won’t cover it like doesn’t cover extra services like cable TV, although you could have a loan to pay for it.
Alumni are reviewing the situation and I feel that is the right thing to do since they have the power as main donors to the university. Not only students but also staff members are complaining they have to pay for a cheap plan with a costly service if you need to use it. I personally received a letter from a maintenance man saying he has to pay for the same plan twice since his freshman son was already cover for this insurance, and also he is forced to pay this insurance having his wife insurance from another job with no co-pays and better coverage.
If Wash U had to put aside the increase for the Internet service when students complained they were paying for an inexistent service, it could happen the same with this unfair situation.</p>
<p>As I see for the answers given (WashU forum) that parents don’t use the Wash U health insurance but they don’t care to throw away $ 700 (7% more next year) of their money, but I also know many parents that can’t afford to do that because they had borrowed from equity lines and loans the college’s cost, and this situation it’s plain unfair. Millions of people in this country can’t afford a health insurance and Wash U doesn’t get it, it feel that it’s normally acceptable to force students to have at least two health insurance policies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Millions of people in this country can’t afford a health insurance and Wash U doesn’t get it...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think that they do get it, in a cyncial sort of way. WashU is using its students, faculty and families members to offer a Universal-style health plan to its local community. By forcing everyone in, even those with other insurances, they keep the price/cost lower than it otherwise would be. It also allows them to (perhaps?) offer better clinic coverage hours than other colleges. At least, that would be their argument. </p>
<p>Of course, the Administrators just sees it as a few hundred extra dollars for their full pay students, which comprise 60% of their student body. But, it can be an extra hardship for those student on finaid. Take a kid of an autoworker, for example, who is on finaid. The kid practically has better insurance than Congress. But, WashU would force that kid into a WorkStudy job to help pay OTHER kid's medical insurance coverage. What a shame, IMO.</p>
<p>Of course, they have extremely bright administrators, and know all this.</p>
<p>My family try to afford us the best possible education with extremely hard work and loans, and I find unfair for my parents to pay for a health insurance that I don’t need since I already have one (much better) from them.
Wash U loves to be the St. Louis' benefactor with other people’s money.</p>
<p>Bluebayou said, "Actually, I think that they do get it, in a cyncial sort of way. WashU is using its students, faculty and families members to offer a Universal-style health plan to its local community."</p>
<p>Bingo! My thoughts exactly. The health plan is a rip off. Poor student health service, no prescrip coverage and a plan just good enough to bump your main plan to secondary.</p>
<p>My son goes to Caltech, one of the 3 schools with mandatory health insurance. They charge almost $1900 per year for this insurance!!!!! We are already covered by insurance, but there is no opting out. As parents paying full freight already ($47,000/year), we could make better use of this money.</p>
<p>Ultimately, some will make the argument of the noble aspects of ensuring full student health insurance, but it comes at the cost of personal choice. If these are truly superior plans for <em>students</em> both particularly the already-insured but also the uninsured, students should be signing up on their free will. With the ubiquitous nature of financial aid (an entirely different debate), the issue isn't one of cost: Students aren't necessarily having to turn down health insurance provided by the college of choice because of the financial concerns that may be the driving reason they're uninsured in the first place. Anytime and anywhere a system abandons some self-regulating feature, whether it's student choice, as in this case, hopeless boondoggles are left unresolved by anything even resembling a market force.</p>
<p>Wash U used to have Aetna services but now they opted with the cheapest and worst plan possible. (More complains on todays edition of Student Life, <a href="http://www.studlife.com%5B/url%5D">www.studlife.com</a>)
One excuse is that this way they could provide a cheap health insurance for those studying abroad. Usually summers abroad cost about six to seven thousand per student and normally those of middle class families cant afford that. Are they subsidizing the wealthy future donors?</p>
<p>While the Uni may also offer a nice study abroad insurance package, it is totally unecessary for those with duplicate health coverage at home. If a covered student becomes ill abroad, they will have to pay out of pocket first, and then be reimbursed once they return to the US and file claims. Even HMOs will reimburse for emergency care recieved overseas. Moreover, the arguement is nonsensical, since 3,000 other colleges in the US do not require dual insurance, but they too have study abroad programs. Obviously, they find a way to make it happen: temporary, short-term (semester/quarter) health policies are available at low cost for those that don't want the hassle to pay out of pocket overseas.</p>
<p>That is true, bluebayou. If I have to pay for a mandatory health insurance for my child, I'd rather have something like the Caltech has with fully coverage than the one Wash U has that doesn't cover a thing.</p>