General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMaine health plans no longer waive costs for Covid treatment
If you don't get the vaccination, you're risking not only your life, but your bank account.
Kimberly Winn, senior communications specialist for Harvard Pilgrim, said it was one of the first health insurers in Maine and the region to announce waivers on cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment.
(But) vaccines are now easily accessible, free and are highly effective in preventing hospitalizations for those who contract COVID-19, Winn said in a statement.
https://www.pressherald.com/2021/08/30/most-maine-health-plans-no-longer-waive-patient-costs-for-covid-19-treatment/
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)for any Covid expense.
They aren't giving the unvaxxxed a break.
mainer
(12,013 posts)But this change in policy should apply only to the unvaccinated.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)But with the vaccination protection dropping as low at 66%, long stays followed by death are occurring at every hospital for the both.
I hope it doesn't go lower, but the trend suggests it will.
As far as changing the policy for only the unvaxed, they can't do that. That's banned and illegal under ACA (Obamacare)
spooky3
(34,302 posts)Application for religious or medically based exemptions, they may differentiate among vaccinated vs unvaccinated employees, unless they are operating in a state that bans it.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/separate-policies-based-on-vaccination-status.aspx
See also: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2021/08/24/unvaccinated-people-higher-insurance-premiums-rich-barlow
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)And those plans become fewer every year.
But the vast majority of insurance has to abide by Section 2704 of the ACA law
It's the same section that bans "pre-existing conditions" (which is just shorthand for health status)
https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
Search for "Sec. 2704" or "discrimination based on health status."
spooky3
(34,302 posts)And I dont see other language dealing with Covid vaccinations.
Generally, getting a vaccination is a choice; it is not a pre-existing condition over which the employee has no control, eg, cancer.
The articles I linked addressed the issue more directly.
Also, the Trump administration in 2020 made amendments to this section.
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/the-trump-administrations-final-rule-on-section-1557-non-discrimination-regulations-under-the-aca-and-current-status/
See the third bullet pointit loosened the restriction on employer discrimination. It was aimed at LBGTQ but ironically it may make it easier for employers to set different policies based on vaccination status.
Here is another article that deals directly with the issue:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/sky-could-be-the-limit-for-surcharges-on-unvaccinated-workers
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)And yea. Aca doesnt address Covid. Covid didnt exist then.
Aca bans discrimination based on health status. Except for smoking.
Health status is a very broad term and doesnt make an exception for anything body related except for smoking.
Go ahead and read through section 2704
dutch777
(2,871 posts)The anti-vax morons should be excluded from as many things as possible-- bars, concerts, flights, anything not a necessity of daily life. And if they infect others they should be liable for their costs along with pain and suffering.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Autumn
(44,761 posts)It will come here, be careful what you wish for. Lets not cheer for pain and suffering to make insurance companies happy. It will cause unnecessary pain and suffering on those who are vaccinated also.