Group health insurance question

Say there is a company with a couple hundred workers. The company offers health insurance via a group plan from a provider (Aetna, Signa, etc.).

One employee has a major health problem, like cancer or heart disease. Over the course of a short period of time the insurance plan pays out a lot of money (hundreds of thousands) on this one persons care.

Does this affect the rate for everyone else in that company?
Does the company get tagged with some of the bills the sick employee generates to the insurance company?
Can one person get booted off a group plan?
Do companies have to pay different rates to insurance companies for different employees?

  1. Does this affect the rate for everyone else in that company? As the law stands right now, as far as I’m aware, it can do - the insurer can raise everyone’s premium rates if they want. However, the point of health insurance is that the healthy premiums of everyone else on the insurer’s books should be sufficient to cover not just this one guy who gets an expensive heart disease, but lots of people who suffer expensive conditions, without the insurer needing to raise premium rates. The fact that you’re talking about a company plan also makes it less likely that the insurer will dare to raise the rates, because the company has bargaining power: if the company decides rates have gone up too much and switches its provider, their current insurer stands to lose hundreds of customers. As of 2014, when most of the provisions of Obama’s recent Affordable Care Act kick in, it will become illegal for an insurer to raise premiums for one customer or a group of customers for medical reasons. They could raise rates for every single customer on their books at the same time for those reasons, but not for any select group. So in 2014 the answer to this question will effectively be, “no”.

I’m not certain about the other questions: my feeling is that while employers subsidize your premiums, any co-payments have to be covered by the employee directly; that even up to now insurers could not ‘rescind’ coverage from a specific person on a group plan, and because of Obama’s legislation, this year it will become illegal to rescind coverage from anyone, on any plan; and that insurers had to offer flat premium rates for everyone on a group plan no matter what their treatment costs are (and again in 2014, Obama’s legislation will make this the law for everybody on any plan). But I’m not completely sure about these answers so if anyone thinks otherwise, let me know. :slight_smile:

I was responsible for choosing the plan for a 50-person company. My experience is as follows.

Yes. When we first signed up with the health company, the rates were determined based on a census of the employees - age, sex, number dependents, but not on medical history. Renewal rates, however, took claims history into account and could rise significantly (well, even more significantly than normal) if there was an expensive incident or two the previous year.

No.

Not sure, but this may be possible as long as you avoid contravening the Americans with Disabilities Act. We do not have to provide health insurance to everyone and we do not have to impose the same level of employee contribution. Health insurance does not have government-enforced equality mandates like 401(k)s.

No. Whether this applies to all plans, I don’t know, but all the plans we had in the last 10 years have been the same cost for all employees. That is the purpose of the census I mentioned above - that is used to calculate an average cost. When I first got involved - about 13 years ago - our then-provider did charge differently for men versus women, but I have not seen that since.

Yes it does effect it. I have administered plans for two companies and it does effect it. It’s just that in a small company it’s more noticable.

One hotel I worked at we had about 170 full time workers on one health plan. During that year three workers got HIV and the cost for all plan divided by everyone was about $10/ per person, per paycheck. Normally the plan goes up less than $5 per person per year.

I worked at another place with only 10 full time employees and one guy had a heart attack and it was a bad one and it also pushed our group premiums up $10 per person, per paycheck.

Does the person (people) getting sick get tagged? No, they do not get tagged. You can get a summary of charges, used by the insurance company to justify the cost raise. Now normally no one ever does this, because there’s no point to it. If an insurer is going to raise your rates and does so, they do. There is no arguing them down. For instance, how did I know HIV 'caused the rate increase. I looked at the cost analysis from the previous year to this year. I can’t be 100% sure it was the HIV, but I now see it listed and it never was before.

Does the person get tagged. Absolutely not. There’s no way to know who is getting treatment for what. For that matter there was no way to know if the HIV treatment is for an employee or an associated family member on the plan.

In my case that was somewhat easy as I’m gay, and I knew who was missing from work and even though Chicago is a big city, the gay community isn’t so you can hear talk like, “Oh so and so is HIV+ now.” And you do the piecework and you can be 99% certain of who it is.

But working in H/R you can reasonably piece it back, through absences from work and such. No one can force you to disclose a condition but we did request people that had such things tell H/R in case of emergency. Of course if they didn’t disclose it, it was no big deal unless it directly effected the job. For instance an epilepsy and driving a car. Of course an epileptic may be able to drive safely but we’d need doctor’s certification for that

One person doesn’t get booted off a plan. This is the good thing about group insurance. Now this doesn’t mean that in a small company the owners won’t TRY to fire the person. Now that isn’t supposed to happen. But in real life it does all the time. And of course you wouldn’t be fired 'cause your heart attack 'caused a jack up in the rates. The owner would simply just watch that employee for other infractions and use those against him.

Companies don’t pay different rates for different employees for a group plan. But they may have different plans for employees. Sometimes you don’t realize this. One hotel I worked for, senior management (director level) had a choice of five plans. The union employees only got one choice, the one the union negotiated. Managers got three choices and line employees (non-union) got two choices.

But unless you were a line employee with two choices talking to a director, you’d never know, 'cause we never mentioned it. There are often many, many tiers of converage behind the scenes you don’t see.

So how did the companies I administered the plan work out the cost increase? Simple we went with another company. We would move from Human to Blue Cross, to Unicare. Every January 1st we went with a new company. Used to drive employees nuts, as they’d have to look for new doctors. I used to tell people, try to find doctors that take all three so you won’t have to switch.

In general the bigger the company the less likely you are to be singled out. As seen in my example once you get above 150 employees its extremely hard to tell or to make a reasonable guess as why insurance rates go up beyond the expected.

But if you work for a small company like 10 people, you’re going to be able to figure anything out with 99% certainty

On our plan we submitted a census (which also asked about smoking) for all our employees. Then we received a ‘rate chart’. This is probably what you meant. Every employee doesn’t have the same premium, but they all work off the same chart. So a healthy 40 year old female will pay more then a healthy 18 year old male, but a healthy 30 year old male will pay exactly the same as another 30 year old male with a lot of problems/addictions/mental issues whatever. It’s based ONLY on age and sex, but the rate chart is made up based on the census. So, if we have 50 employees and 40 of them smoke the non smokers will still have to pay more since they work off the same rate chart which will have inflated costs from the smokers. This is probably the driving reason behind companies trying to get their employees to quit smoking. It lowers the insurance rates, especially if the company is picking up all or part of the premiums.

Actually, in all the cases I have seen in the last 10 tears, every employee did have the same premium, differing only if they added spouse or dependents.

I just realized that I answered the wrong question about a person being booted off a plan. I answered as to whether the employer could boot someone off for causing the premiums to rise. That may be possible - I don’t know. The insurance company cannot boot someone off, though.

It could very well be different for the plan you worked with. This is for United Health Care and on top of that it could be for the specific plan we are using. Dunno.
As for booting someone off the plan, as far as I know we can’t do that. The law (state? federal? insurance company policy?) says we HAVE to offer insurance to all eligible employees. I assume that that also implies we can’t take it away from someone that’s eligible.

**amarone **& **Markxxx **absolutely match my experiences dealing with setting up group insurance for 10 to 200 person companies.

One thing **Markxxx **mentioned but didn’t elaborate on. …

The health insurers have been playing the same games with companies that mobile phone providers play with consumers. They offer an unrealistically low rate the first year to get you to sign with them, and then slam you with 25+% rate increases the second (and subsequent) year(s). Which causes a smart company to try shopping around for a different plan each year. Disruptive as hell for the employees.

Depending on how much of the premium the company pays vs the employees pay, management may choose to skip the effort of shopping around, just renew the current plan and pass the 25+% increase on to the workers.

I have had one-premium-for-all under United, Aetna, BC/BS, and have been quoted such by Humana although we never went with them.

On reflection, I think with the plans we have been on the insurance company may have requireed that we offer it to all “eligible employees”, where “eligible” means those that meet criteria for hours worked rathyer than “are healthy enough”.

One of the things our broker will do is every couple of years she’ll submit a ‘fake’ company to an insurance company for a quote. This ‘fake company’ will have identical data to one of the current companies (same number/sex/age/ailments etc) then when the insurance company gives her a lower rate then what they are currently giving the real company she’ll call them on it. At the very least she can usually at least keep the premiums the same instead of them going up each year like they usually do.

Thankfully, this practice will become illegal in 2014 under Obama’s health care reform.

My brother works at a factory where the percentage of workers who smoke is very high - he said that he has to pay more for health insurance for something he doesn’t do because it’s a group rate and is set based on everyone, and the rates are higher because of the smoking, and the fact that he doesn’t smoke doesn’t exempt him from having to pay for everyone else’s smoking. That’s one of the points of insurance anyway - the risk ends up being spread. Now, if my brother comes down with some horrible disease that costs millions to treat, smokers who didn’t get it would end up having covered him.

This, however, will continue to be allowed even under Obama’s reforms. Insurers will be allowed to raise people’s premiums by up to 50% above the regular rate if they’re smokers.

Cite? You may well be right… and as a sanctimonious nonsmoker there’s a small, not-nice part of me that would chortle at the thought… but of course I’ve got my own set of self-caused health issues (weight) that a thinner person might think should mandate higher rates for me… and hey, let’s slam anyone who rides a motorbike… or plays football… or any one of a host of other behaviors that might lead to high medical bills this year. Anyway my point is that I hadn’t heard of this specific situation in descriptions of the new law.

This PDF summary document from the speaker’s website notes under the first heading that as of 2014 premiums will only be allowed to vary for different customers according to either their age or their smoking status, by 3:1 and 1:1.5 respectively (which actually isn’t 50% I don’t think, apologies). Insurers will not be allowed to set different premiums for different customers according to any other aspect of their health status, gender, family history or occupation. I know there was a provision in the House bill allowing insurers to vary premium rates according to geographical location as well, but I’m not certain whether it made it into the final bill.

Did any of you guys who know something about health insurance plans catch this link from the Starving Artist Death Panel thread?

What do you think about it? Do you think it’s plausible that an insurance company would behave like the one in the link?

Absolutely. As of this moment, insurance companies can raise the premiums on an employer-provided plan if the plan starts incurring high costs (and part of those new premiums will have to be subsidised by the employer), they can try to drop your coverage if you get sick, and they can refuse to offer you a new plan if you are sick or have a difficult medical history. I don’t know about them calling your company to suggest they have the option of firing you instead of accounting for your treatment and subsequent higher premiums, but it doesn’t sound beyond the realm of possibility.

The good news is that pretty much all of that will become illegal under Obama’s Affordable Care Act: rescinding someone’s insurance when they get sick becomes illegal this year (although I don’t think that would apply to the woman in that link), and in 2014 it will become illegal to raise premiums for any plan based on the costs incurred on that plan or to deny anyone coverage due to their medical history or pre-existing conditions. Moreover, the woman in that link would qualify for Medicaid long before she does in that story. It makes you realize how callous politicians can be when the suffering of people like that woman either become a good story to help you pass your bill, or something to ignore while you try and score political points.