This morning's mail brought this gem from Companion Life (which markets non-medical products like dental and disability insurance):
"Companion Life ... is pleased to announce (that) it will accommodate young adults ... by allowing (them), up to age 26, to stay on their parent's group dental and vision plans in accordance with the [Un]Affordable Care Act ." [emphasis added]
The PP[U]ACA does no such thing:
"Generally, the "insurance market reform" provisions of PPACA, such as the ... requirement to cover dependent children to age 26 ...apply to "group health plans," which are defined as employee welfare benefit plans providing medical benefits."[emphasis added]
So what kinds of plans are specifically excluded from this definition?
How about:
"Benefits that are not an integral part of a group health plan. Examples of these benefits include limited-scope dental and vision benefits ..."
Full Disclosure: I have (happily) represented Companion Life for many years. But I also believe that this alone does not exempt them from being "called out," especially when they intentionally and proactively cave in on requirements which don't apply to them.
So why would a carrier willingly, indeed proactively, seek to labor under ObamaCare© rules? What do you think?
"Companion Life ... is pleased to announce (that) it will accommodate young adults ... by allowing (them), up to age 26, to stay on their parent's group dental and vision plans in accordance with the [Un]Affordable Care Act ." [emphasis added]
The PP[U]ACA does no such thing:
"Generally, the "insurance market reform" provisions of PPACA, such as the ... requirement to cover dependent children to age 26 ...apply to "group health plans," which are defined as employee welfare benefit plans providing medical benefits."[emphasis added]
So what kinds of plans are specifically excluded from this definition?
How about:
"Benefits that are not an integral part of a group health plan. Examples of these benefits include limited-scope dental and vision benefits ..."
Full Disclosure: I have (happily) represented Companion Life for many years. But I also believe that this alone does not exempt them from being "called out," especially when they intentionally and proactively cave in on requirements which don't apply to them.
So why would a carrier willingly, indeed proactively, seek to labor under ObamaCare© rules? What do you think?
0 comments:
Post a Comment