Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who is on a medical program that offers better than $1600.00 deductible?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 10:22 PM
Original message
Who is on a medical program that offers better than $1600.00 deductible?
We just went from copayments of $17.00 to a per person deductible of $1600.00. For a family of four, that's like taking a salary hit of $6000, depending on what comes up during the year. This is under Blue Shield.

Is this what is happening to everyone else? Are there better options out there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Try Kaiser.
See what is available in your region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. How did you make that "salary hit" calculation?
Edited on Sat Jan-22-05 10:44 PM by enough
We're 60, self-employed all our lives, and I still don't know how to figure that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh, because I assume:
For a family of four, I'm assuming that roughly $400.00 got eaten up by the $17.00 deductible in the past. AND, I'm also assuming that it is a bad year and four members of a family of four each max out their deductibles. Therefore, in the new year, we'd pay $6000.00 in medical care that we didn't have to pay the year before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Oh! I just realize why you're puzzled.
Medical care use to be a benefit and was one of the inducers to stay with a company. CEOs, I understand, are still allowed to put in all kinds of obscene perks in their Golden Parachutes, and, at one time when employees were also valued, modest and practical perks were offered also. Medical care was one of them. If an employer wants to keep on an employee they've spent a tremendous amount of time training, sometimes, these perks are a good idea to hold onto, even if they can't offer better salary packages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Try www.GHC.org
Group Health Coop is a member owned organization...

May be they can help
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
60. That's who we have at work
My work is at a democratically operated coop, so we wanted to go with another coop for our insurance.

I have the 'cheapo' community plan, and pay about $40/month (which is about 1/2 of the cost. GHC usually requires a 50% employer co-pay). Prescription deductible is $6/each, office visit deductible is $15/visit, and the hospital stay deductible is $500. Interestingly enough, however, I've been in the hospital three times on this insurance (via the ER), and haven't had to pay an additional cent. Not sure if that's a mistake, or an aspect of the plan I missed.

It's not bad, overall.

The family insurance is MUCH more expensive -- about $200/month with our co-pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr4567 Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. Medical insurance
The Company I work for has done the same thing it was a 25 dollar
copay now we have to pay a large deductible and after that they will only pay up to 80 percent where as last year it was 100 percent and on top of that the premium doubled. I'm no fortune teller but I can tell you my raise won't even begin to cover the lose. What can we do about this? another question when did it become the responsibility of our employer's to insure us? does anybody know around what year and why and what did we do before this was enacted? do employers of other countries do the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. As I mentioned before in another post:
Edited on Sat Jan-22-05 11:21 PM by The Backlash Cometh
Good medical insurance was one way to draw in and keep good employees. CEOs are allowed to have perks, why can't labor? It was called free market. But now, the Bush Administration is pretty much price fixing the program so that no one has to offer it to their employees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. This is part of the reason conservatives tolearate high unemployment rates
Desperate employees don't have bargaining power.

This is also the reason conservatives don't like unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lavenderdiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I could be wrong about this... and I do hope someone here helps me out-
but, I think most other nations offer some sort of nationalized healthplan. Growing up in Australia, this was the case. All healthcare was subsidized by the government. Back in the late 60's, when you went to the doctor, no office visit was over $3AU. I'm sure it has gone up since then, but the principal is still the same. I believe I heard that the US is pretty much the only country that maintains this sort of healthcare system. They are oh-so afraid of nationalized medicine. I have a friend, who needs knee surgery (to repair a bad knee replacement performed here in US), and is moving back to Norway to live there, (she has no health insurance here), and the government will help cover it. I don't know if the taxes in these other countries way outpace our rates here, as that is how the govt covers the payouts, but there must be some way to improve the system here. It seems the only one getting anything out of the current system is the insurance provider. It also seems the Dr's hands are tied, in one sense, because they can't offer the complete care they would like to b/c the insurance companies limit what they will pay for. We, as the covered, are not getting the best that we could b/c the insurance companies limit what they cover and how much they will pay. Employers are kinda stuck in the middle b/c we have gotten used to them picking up the slack in the premiums, etc., but now things have gone so far they can't afford to continue doing the same thing. These are just my humble opinions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. The U.S. is one of two industrialized nations not to offer health care
The other is South Africa.

Even Mexico, poor as it is, has a national health insurance plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lavenderdiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. thanks for the info shrike! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatelseisnew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. True: "Employers are kinda stuck..."
My workplace is being hit hard by the cost of their health plan- to the point of considering the option of offering a "health care stipend" to salaries and cancelling the health care account. It's a tough decision, but for a small business like this one, it could make the difference between surviving or failing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. Small businesses get slammed, don't they? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Hi dmr4567!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lavenderdiva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. welcome dmr4567!!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. It has never been...
....an employer's "responsibility" to insure their employees. Some began offering medical insurance plans as a benefit to attract and keep good employees back in the 50s and 60s and it was something that caught-on to the point that most businesses which had more than a few full-time employees offered such benefits. But it isn't anything that was ever "enacted" or mandated and has always been a voluntary benefit for employers to offer.

And initially, benefits were far more limited than they are today. Often, out-patient services weren't covered at all, or they only covered things like laboratory tests and x-rays and emergency accident care on an outpatient basis (or outpatient surgery, though very few procedures were done on an outpatient basis in those days) and benefits for things such as "routine" or preventive care were unheard-of as was coverage for dental care, vision care, and prescription drugs. Those things began to come along later, when employers began to compete to provide more and more comprehensive plans. Also, the 80/20 split after meeting a deductible was more or less the norm until the '70s when HMOs came into vogue with their small co-pays after which the balance was paid at 100%, but only for doctors who worked for the HMO and people who used HMOs were only covered for services provided by HMO providers. That, then, evolved into PPOs and EPOs and the like that would use the 100% after a co-pay for "in network" providers and a per-centage after deductible for out-of-network providers.

Before employers offered benefits, people paid their own medical expenses. Then again, in the interim, medical technology has exploded and the cost of medical care is astronomically more expensive now than it was then. That's made the cost of what insurance companies pay for skyrocket, which has made insurance more expensive to employers, which has caused employers to have to pass a greater per-centage of the costs back to their employers.

One thing that a lot of people aren't aware of is that many, many employers self-insure their medical plans these days instead of buying insurance from an insurance company. Look in your benefit booklet. If there's a section that refers to "ERISA" (often titled "Your Rights Under ERISA"), your employer funds the payments for covered expenses under your plan out of their own pocket and only pays an administrative fee for paperwork, servicing and record keeping to the company that processes the claims. In those cases, an insurance company doesn't get involved until and unless a person's expenses in a given year exceed a relatively high threshhold..........sometimes as much as $100,000..........and anything up to that point is a direct expense to the employer. Considering the cost of medical care in the 21st century, that should give us some insight into why employers are doing some of the things that they are these days when it comes to increasing co-pays and deductibles etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Welcome, Willow Tree
Good explanation. However, I think ERISA holds even if the plan is not self-insured, but is covered by an insurance contract with the carrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Insured plans are regulated...
....by the various state departments of insurance and each individual plan comes under the primary jurisdiction of the state where the plan is written (though, in some instances, regulations of other states where the employer does business outside it's home state come into play, as well). Since self-funded plans are technically not insurance, state regulators have little if any authority over them in most instances, hence the federal ERISA act comes into play.

You may be thinking of COBRA, or maybe HIPAA, both of which apply regardless of whether a plan is fully-insured, partially insured, or fully self-funded. Then again, maybe not.

Be all of that as it may, thanks much for the welcome, SharonRB. I 'preciate it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'll have to ask at work tomorrow, but
I'm pretty sure that when we do SPDs for our clients, we have an ERISA section whether the plan is self-insured or insured. I could be wrong, but it's easy for me to find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Could be that...
....ERISA has been expanded to apply to insured plans as well in more recent years. I admit that that end of things hasn't been where I've been directly involved most recently, so I could have missed a change here and there. I do know that the Feds historically have stayed out of the regulation of active insured plans, leaving that to the states to handle.

Regardless, though, I've always thought that it's important for people to find out which kind of program they have with their employer (and the easiest way to tell used to be to just look for the ERISA wording in the plan booklet). I've seen way too many people waste way too much time and energy trying to get assistance from a state department of insurance only to find out that they have no jurisdiction and that they have to start an appeal or whatever all over again under ERISA, or worse yet, that the time frame for an ERISA appeal had expired. People really have to look into these things and all too often, no one's even told them that some of these differences exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. I'll try to remember
to check at work tomorrow and send you a PM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #35
59. You can't receive PMs yet, so I'll respond here
Hopefully you'll see this.

I checked when I got in this morning, and ERISA applies whether the plan is self-funded by the employer or insured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Wally Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. During WW II
There were very stringent wage and price controls in effect. The automotive unions couldn't bargain for higher wages because of the controls, so they asked for paid medical and dental. Post war, it became a pattern for large companies to offer fully paid medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and life insurance to the employees. When "fringe" benefits cost began to get up to 25-33% of total personnel costs, the companies began to scale back. I forget the exact numbers, but somewheres i remember hearing that for a US made car something like $1200-$1500 of the cost was employee medical benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Our deductible went from
$250 to $750. I didn't even bother to complain because I'm so freaking glad just to have coverage. Our oldest is autistic with ADHD and is on alot of expensive meds. Yeah, they got me by the proverbial balls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neebob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Mine's not that much
but the premium is going up on February 1st, and my share of the increase is $100 a month, and the company's paying quite a bit more than that. I'm fortunate to work for a company that takes really good care of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. Me, too.
It's just my husband and me, since our daughter is out of the house, and the amount coming out of my paycheck hasn't gone up much the last few years. We have a flex plan, so the employer money I don't use for certain benefits (such as buying 5 extra vacation days) goes to my medical coverage. The biggest change for me is the Rx copay going up this year. Other than $10 for doctor office visits, I never have to pay a dime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-05 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. Just my wife and I
We have Kaiser's best option ........ almost $900 a month ...... self employed ..... it comes out of our pocket 100%.

Meds - $5 copay for mail and $15 copy in person at a Kaiser pharmacy
Doc visits - $5 copay
Hospital - most stuff is fully covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Wow... that is a lot of money.
My husband and I self-employed too, and buy our own insurance. We'd pay around that amount too, but instead we chose a high-deductible (something like $5000 which we've set aside) and pay around $250 a month. This works because we are pretty healthy and rarely go to the doctor (knock on wood).

If you have health problems, though, I guess you're totally stuck paying that much. Ouch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
14. I am covered by Aetna through my employer.
Co-pay went from $15 to $30. But there is no deductible. It covers just about 90% of everything. I have dental and eye care insurance. The dental sucks. Prescriptions are $5 for generic and $30 for others. But I only pay less then $100 a month for all the coverage. I it also includes life insurance equal to your yearly salary (which in my case, isn't all that much).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. Sounds like your employer just converted your plan
to a Health Savings Account (the screwy deductible amount makes me think that).

Welcome to George's Ownership Society. I've hated the idea of HSAs the minute I heard about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
37. Anyone else have more info on HSAs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #37
53. Here's a link.
http://www.opm.gov/hsa/

Keep in mind, it's going to be a bit slanted towards how great and wonderful they are. Personally, I think this is going to fuck up health insurance in this country even worse, if it's successful. All the rich and/or healthy people will go to HSAs, leaving the sick and low-income people on traditional plans which are going to be twice as expensive since they will no longer have the pool of healthy individuals to fund them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
20. you're on a health program?
Lucky you. I haven't had health insurance since 2001.


Oh, yeah, and I am employed full time. In a business I own.

Health insurance is out of my price range.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. But you're self-employed and have access to all the profits if you like.
Large corporations that require trained, skilled workers sometimes have to compete for them. That's why medical insurance is a good perk to have around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. profits? What are those?
Oh yeah, I've heard of those. They used to exist in midwestern small businesses. They don't anymore.

Oh, and btw, small businesses require trained, skilled workers too. And they would LOVE to be able to offer health benefits. But in the real world, and especially the economy of the past 4 years, that's not happening.

People have a lot of misconceptions about small businesses and their owners. That's too bad really, since small businesses hire the most workers in the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. "People have a lot of misconceptions about small businesses .....
..... and their owners"

The formal definition of a small business belies the truth. Small business can be up to several million dollars in income. Most self-employed (small business) are far smaller than that. Most are lucky to see a hundred K in income.

Another way the Chimpus Khan administration is duping the masses. They don't give a rats ass about the real small businesses ... just the few fat cat small businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. you're exactly right
and I love the term Chimpus Khan!

My biz employees 3-6 people, depending on the economy. We've been at 3 for the past year and struggling at that.

We just hired someone though, so now my new hire info will go into the big number heaven in the sky and the gov't will talk about how small businesses are hiring again so the economy is great! ugh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. Well, that's free market for you. In America, you have the guarantee
to your own business, you just don't have the guarantee to a successful business. And if you're not going to give $ to the government, you can't expect the goverment to work on any programs that will help you out in the long run. They're tapped out of $ and they're tapped out of ideas.

However, if you do want those skilled workers, well, they're available on the free market. As long as you have a competitor in the area, you'll have to compete for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. who says I'm not giving $ to the gov't?
Geesh why do I have to write all those tax checks?

I do have skilled workers, thanks for asking. BTW, my competitors don't offer health insurance either. None of us can.

Last person I hired (last week) didn't even bat an eye when I told her. She didn't expect any health care benefits from a company this small.

I apologized anyway. And told her I would keep trying to find something we could all afford.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. So, you would agree that there is a big difference between working
for a large company and working for a small company? As I stated in my original post: "Large corporations that require trained, skilled workers sometimes have to compete for them. That's why medical insurance is a good perk to have around."

And believe me, to get those jobs requires someone who can take the heat because there is a lot of competition for them. That's also one of the reasons why medical insurance is getting so lousy.

One thing we haven't discussed here is how much of the medical insurance problem can be attributed to losses suffered by the insurance companies which invested in real estate (which went flat in the 80s) or stocks (which went flat twice in the 90s)

It's not all the fault of attorneys. Pharmecutical profits and losses in outside investments also played a major role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. ok, now this conversation has gone full circle
and I feel you missed the point of what all I was saying.

No matter really.

The reason insurance is so high, however, has nothing to do with losses. The insurance companies never struggled. Their profit margin is obscene and has been for 30 years.

It will stay obscene until the people rise up and demand change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
26. I'm in an HMO (Health Alliance Plan of Michigan)
and my doctor visit copays are still $10 -- no annual deductible. My Rx went up this year from $5 to $10 for generic and $20 for brand name drugs.

I work for an HR/Benefits consulting firm and we see a lot of our clients drastically changing their plans to account for the increasing costs. Rx changes are most prevalent, but many are offering new plans with higher deductibles/copays. Many are getting rid of retiree medical entirely or drastically limiting employer contributions. This is why health care reform is so important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
29. We have CarleCare.
We have a co-pay of $5 per office visit, and an annual deductible of $1000/person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
31. Change in my health care last year...
Everything went up! Used to have a $240 co-pay for an overnight visit (anything over 23 hours). That went to $1500. Copays were $15 to $25. Now the copays are $25 to $40.

I sit on the benefits committee at my place of employment and we went over the plans early last year. I voted for a single plan that offered savings, mostly for older employees with families. However, I was voted down in favor of a second plan that offered two choices ("Had to have two choices!"). It seems to benefit the younger single employees more than the older employees with families. Anyway the committee went for this plan and KansDem was SOL.

The catch was that all the copays went up. However, young employees saw only the need of paying one or two copays with each incident (Spraining an ankle while skiing; too much sun over the weekend, etc). I, however tried to explain that an injury or illness carries several copays:

emergency room
over-night stay
doctor followups
specialists
drugs
prescriptions
etc.

I tried to explain that a single incident might carry 10 copays or more, but all I saw were blank stares. I don't think the other members of the committee understood what I was saying. It seemed many of the younger employees was looking at: "Oops, sprained by ankle. That would entail a emergency room copay, doctor copay, and a prescription drug copay to cut the pain... Quite manageable!"

I suppose I'm happy to have medical insurance, but I just couldn't get over the shallow arguments used by my fellow committee members to vote against the one plan where real savings resulted for older employees with families, or for thouse who need medical attention on a regular basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yikes! You should be grateful.
We're self-employed and have had a $4,500 deductible for the past 7 years - forget co-payments. Every year for the past 4 years the premium has gone up in double digits. The last year was the killer, 36%. Now we don't have to worry about it because we can no longer afford insurance. Thank you, George Bush. (And for any of you tempted to say, "Gee, check around," we did. It was the cheapest policy in our state. DH was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes a few years back and even though it's controlled by diet and exercise, the insurance companies are convinced he's sure to rack up a trillion dollar hospital bill. His Grandma, by the way, lived past 100 and was diagnosed with the same thing at the same time in her life. This, in a nutshell, is why we need universal care. Providers shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick policy holders. Basic health care should be as much a right as an education. Sorry . . . didn't mean to go on a rant, but when health insurance premiums are 4 times the mortgage payment . . .) P.S. This insurance company never paid a dime on our behalf in 7 years.:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. HiVinca. My post number 43 probably would make a great response
Edited on Sun Jan-23-05 06:29 PM by The Backlash Cometh
to your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
44. The Tax Law changed (you can thank * for the improvement)
During 2003 a new code section 223 was added to the tax code creating a "Health Savings Account". It is treated the same as a 401(k) your contributions are made with pre tax dollars and are not included in you Adjusted Gross Income just like a 401(k).

Unlike a 401(k) you can spend any money in the account for medical expenses without paying income tax or the 10% penalty.
In addition amounts spent from the account for medical purposes are *NOT* included in your gross income.

I will attach in my next post the text of IRS Notice 2004-2 that explains this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Thanks. If this "improvement" turns out to be a rip-off, I hope that
Krugman will write something about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. Are we having a DUUHHHH moment
Of course it's a rip off. The owners of small business can most likely cut their medical insurance cost in half by doing this. And guess what YOU; my fellow DUer get to pick up the bill.

<SARCASM ON>

Isn't this a great improvement?

<SARCASM OFF>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Yes, but Krugman says it so much better.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
47. IRS Notice 2004-2
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (HSAs)

NOTICE 2004-2

PURPOSE

This notice provides guidance on Health Savings Accounts.



BACKGROUND

Section 1201 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and

Modernization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-173, added section 223 to the

Internal Revenue Code to permit eligible individuals to establish Health

Savings Accounts (HSAs) for taxable years beginning after December 31,

2003. HSAs are established to receive tax-favored contributions by or on

behalf of eligible individuals and amounts in an HSA may be accumulated

over the years or distributed on a tax-free basis to pay or reimburse

qualified medical expenses.

A number of the rules that apply to HSAs are similar to rules that

apply to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) under sections 219, 408 and

408A, and to Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSAs) under section

220. For example, like an Archer MSA, an HSA is established for the

benefit of an individual, is owned by that individual, and is portable.

Thus, if the individual is an employee who later changes employers or

leaves the work force, the HSA does not stay behind with the former

employer, but stays with the individual.

This notice provides certain basic information about HSAs in question

and answer format, without attempting to enumerate all of the specific

rules that apply under section 223.

The notice is divided into five parts. Part I of the notice explains

what HSAs are and who can have them. Part II describes how HSAs can be

established. Parts III and IV cover contributions to HSAs and

distributions from HSAs. Part V discusses other matters relating to HSAs.



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Set forth below are questions and answers concerning HSAs.



I. WHAT ARE HSAs AND WHO CAN HAVE THEM?

Q-1. What is an HSA?

A-1. An HSA is a tax-exempt trust or custodial account established

exclusively for the purpose of paying qualified medical expenses of the

account beneficiary who, for the months for which contributions are made

to an HSA, is covered under a high-deductible health plan.

Q-2. Who is eligible to establish an HSA?

A-2. An "eligible individual" can establish an HSA. An "eligible

individual" means, with respect to any month, any individual who: (1) is

covered under a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) on the first day of

such month; (2) is not also covered by any other health plan that is not

an HDHP (with certain exceptions for plans providing certain limited types

of coverage); (3) is not entitled to benefits under Medicare (generally,

has not yet reached age 65); and (4) may not be claimed as a dependent on

another person's tax return.

Q-3. What is a "high-deductible health plan" (HDHP)?

A-3. Generally, an HDHP is a health plan that satisfies certain

requirements with respect to deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.

Specifically, for self-only coverage, an HDHP has an annual deductible of

at least $1,000 and annual out-of-pocket expenses required to be paid

(deductibles, co-payments and other amounts, but not premiums) not

exceeding $5,000. For family coverage, an HDHP has an annual deductible of

at least $2,000 and annual out-of-pocket expenses required to be paid not

exceeding $10,000. In the case of family coverage, a plan is an HDHP only

if, under the terms of the plan and without regard to which family member

or members incur expenses, no amounts are payable from the HDHP until the

family has incurred annual covered medical expenses in excess of the

minimum annual deductible. Amounts are indexed for inflation. A plan does

not fail to qualify as an HDHP merely because it does not have a

deductible (or has a small deductible) for preventive care (e.g., first

dollar coverage for preventive care). However, except for preventive care,

a plan may not provide benefits for any year until the deductible for that

year is met. See A-4 and A-6 for special rules regarding network plans and

plans providing certain types of coverage.

Example (1): A Plan provides coverage for A and his family. The Plan

provides for the payment of covered medical expenses of any member of A's

family if the member has incurred covered medical expenses during the year

in excess of $1,000 even if the family has not incurred covered medical

expenses in excess of $2,000. If A incurred covered medical expenses of

$1,500 in a year, the Plan would pay $500. Thus, benefits are potentially

available under the Plan even if the family's covered medical expenses do

not exceed $2,000. Because the Plan provides family coverage with an

annual deductible of less than $2,000, the Plan is not an HDHP.

Example (2): Same facts as in example (1), except that the Plan has a

$5,000 family deductible and provides payment for covered medical expenses

if any member of A's family has incurred covered medical expenses during

the year in excess of $2,000. The Plan satisfies the requirements for an

HDHP with respect to the deductibles. See A-12 for HSA contribution

limits.

Q-4. What are the special rules for determining whether a health plan

that is a network plan meets the requirements of an HDHP?

A-4. A network plan is a plan that generally provides more favorable

benefits for services provided by its network of providers than for

services provided outside of the network. In the case of a plan using a

network of providers, the plan does not fail to be an HDHP (if it would

otherwise meet the requirements of an HDHP) solely because the

out-of-pocket expense limits for services provided outside of the network

exceeds the maximum annual out-of-pocket expense limits allowed for an

HDHP. In addition, the plan's annual deductible for out-of-network

services is not taken into account in determining the annual contribution

limit. Rather, the annual contribution limit is determined by reference to

the deductible for services within the network.

Q-5. What kind of other health coverage makes an individual ineligible

for an HSA?

A-5. Generally, an individual is ineligible for an HSA if the

individual, while covered under an HDHP, is also covered under a health

plan (whether as an individual, spouse, or dependent) that is not an HDHP.

See also A-6.

Q-6. What other kinds of health coverage may an individual maintain

without losing eligibility for an HSA?

A-6. An individual does not fail to be eligible for an HSA merely

because, in addition to an HDHP, the individual has coverage for any

benefit provided by "permitted insurance." Permitted insurance is

insurance under which substantially all of the coverage provided relates

to liabilities incurred under workers' compensation laws, tort

liabilities, liabilities relating to ownership or use of property (e.g.,

automobile insurance), insurance for a specified disease or illness, and

insurance that pays a fixed amount per day (or other period) of

hospitalization.

In addition to permitted insurance, an individual does not fail to be

eligible for an HSA merely because, in addition to an HDHP, the individual

has coverage (whether provided through insurance or otherwise) for

accidents, disability, dental care, vision care, or long-term care. If a

plan that is intended to be an HDHP is one in which substantially all of

the coverage of the plan is through permitted insurance or other coverage

as described in this answer, it is not an HDHP.

Q-7. Can a self-insured medical reimbursement plan sponsored by an

employer be an HDHP?

A-7. Yes.



II. HOW CAN AN HSA BE ESTABLISHED?

Q-8. How does an eligible individual establish an HSA?

A-8. Beginning January 1, 2004, any eligible individual (as described

in A-2) can establish an HSA with a qualified HSA trustee or custodian, in

much the same way that individuals establish IRAs or Archer MSAs with

qualified IRA or Archer MSA trustees or custodians. No permission or

authorization from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is necessary to

establish an HSA. An eligible individual who is an employee may establish

an HSA with or without involvement of the employer.

Q-9. Who is a qualified HSA trustee or custodian?

A-9. Any insurance company or any bank (including a similar financial

institution as defined in section 408(n)) can be an HSA trustee or

custodian. In addition, any other person already approved by the IRS to be

a trustee or custodian of IRAs or Archer MSAs is automatically approved to

be an HSA trustee or custodian. Other persons may request approval to be a

trustee or custodian in accordance with the procedures set forth in Treas.

Reg. section 1.408-2(e) (relating to IRA nonbank trustees). For additional

information concerning nonbank trustees and custodians, see Announcement

2003-54, 2003-40 I.R.B. 761.

Q-10. Does the HSA have to be opened at the same institution that

provides the HDHP?

A-10. No. The HSA can be established through a qualified trustee or

custodian who is different from the HDHP provider. Where a trustee or

custodian does not sponsor the HDHP, the trustee or custodian may require

proof or certification that the account beneficiary is an eligible

individual, including that the individual is covered by a health plan that

meets all of the requirements of an HDHP.



III. CONTRIBUTIONS TO HSAs.

Q-11. Who may contribute to an HSA?

A-11. Any eligible individual may contribute to an HSA. For an HSA

established by an employee, the employee, the employee's employer or both

may contribute to the HSA of the employee in a given year. For an HSA

established by a self-employed (or unemployed) individual, the individual

may contribute to the HSA. Family members may also make contributions to

an HSA on behalf of another family member as long as that other family

member is an eligible individual.

Q-12. How much may be contributed to an HSA in calendar year 2004?

A-12. The maximum annual contribution to an HSA is the sum of the

limits determined separately for each month, based on status, eligibility

and health plan coverage as of the first day of the month. For calendar

year 2004, the maximum monthly contribution for eligible individuals with

self-only coverage under an HDHP is 1/12 of the lesser of 100% of the

annual deductible under the HDHP (minimum of $1,000) but not more than

$2,600. For eligible individuals with family coverage under an HDHP, the

maximum monthly contribution is 1/12 of the lesser of 100% of the annual

deductible under the HDHP (minimum of $2,000) but not more than $5,150. In

addition to the maximum contribution amount, catch-up contributions, as

described in A-14, may be made by or on behalf of individuals age 55 or

older and younger than 65.

All HSA contributions made by or on behalf of an eligible individual to

an HSA are aggregated for purposes of applying the limit. The annual limit

is decreased by the aggregate contributions to an Archer MSA. The same

annual contribution limit applies whether the contributions are made by an

employee, an employer, a self-employed person, or a family member. Unlike

Archer MSAs, contributions may be made by or on behalf of eligible

individuals even if the individuals have no compensation or if the

contributions exceed their compensation. If an individual has more than

one HSA, the aggregate annual contributions to all the HSAs are subject to

the limit.

Q-13. How is the contribution limit computed for an individual who

begins self-only coverage under an HDHP on June 1, 2004 and continues to

be covered under the HDHP for the rest of the year?

A-13. The contribution limit is computed each month. If the annual

deductible is $5,000 for the HDHP, then the lesser of the annual

deductible and $2,600 is $2,600. The monthly contribution limit is $216.67

($2,600 / 12). The annual contribution limit is $1,516.69 (7 x $216.67).

Q-14. What are the "catch-up contributions" for individuals age 55 or

older?

A-14. For individuals (and their spouses covered under the HDHP)

between ages 55 and 65, the HSA contribution limit is increased by $500 in

calendar year 2004. This catch-up amount will increase in $100 increments

annually, until it reaches $1,000 in calendar year 2009. As with the

annual contribution limit, the catch-up contribution is also computed on a

monthly basis. After an individual has attained age 65 (the Medicare

eligibility age), contributions, including catch-up contributions, cannot

be made to an individual's HSA.

Example: An individual attains age 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare

benefits in July, 2004 and had been participating in self-only coverage

under an HDHP with an annual deductible of $1,000. The individual is no

longer eligible to make HSA contributions (including catch-up

contributions) after June, 2004. The monthly contribution limit is $125

($1,000 / 12 + $500 / 12 for the catch-up contribution). The individual

may make contributions for January through June totaling $750 (6 x $125),

but may not make any contributions for July through December, 2004.

Q-15. If one or both spouses have family coverage, how is the

contribution limit computed?

A-15. In the case of individuals who are married to each other, if

either spouse has family coverage, both are treated as having family

coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate health plan,

both spouses are treated as covered under the plan with the lowest

deductible. The contribution limit for the spouses is the lowest

deductible amount, divided equally between the spouses unless they agree

on a different division. The family coverage limit is reduced further by

any contribution to an Archer MSA. However, both spouses may make the

catch-up contributions for individuals age 55 or over without exceeding

the family coverage limit.

Example (1): H and W are married. H is 58 and W is 53. H and W both

have family coverage under separate HDHPs. H has a $3,000 deductible under

his HDHP and W has a $2,000 deductible under her HDHP. H and W are treated

as covered under the plan with the $2,000 deductible. H can contribute

$1,500 to an HSA (1/2 the deductible of $2,000 + $500 catch up

contribution) and W can contribute $1,000 to an HSA (unless they agree to

a different division).

Example (2): H and W are married. H is 35 and W is 33. H and W each

have a self-only HDHP. H has a $1,000 deductible under his HDHP and W has

a $1,500 deductible under her HDHP. H can contribute $1,000 to an HSA and

W can contribute $1,500 to an HSA.

Q-16. In what form must contributions be made to an HSA?

A-16. Contributions to an HSA must be made in cash. For example,

contributions may not be made in the form of stock or other property.

Payments for the HDHP and contributions to the HSA can be made through a

cafeteria plan. See A-33.

Q-17. What is the tax treatment of an eligible individual's HSA

contributions?

A-17. Contributions made by an eligible individual to an HSA (which are

subject to the limits described in A-12) are deductible by the eligible

individual in determining adjusted gross income (i.e., "above-the-line").

The contributions are deductible whether or not the eligible individual

itemizes deductions. However, the individual cannot also deduct the

contributions as medical expense deductions under section 213.

Q-18. What is the tax treatment of contributions made by a family

member on behalf of an eligible individual?

A-18. Contributions made by a family member on behalf of an eligible

individual to an HSA (which are subject to the limits described in A-12)

are deductible by the eligible individual in computing adjusted gross

income. The contributions are deductible whether or not the eligible

individual itemizes deductions. An individual who may be claimed as a

dependent on another person's tax return is not an eligible individual and

may not deduct contributions to an HSA.

Q-19. What is the tax treatment of employer contributions to an

employee's HSA?

A-19. In the case of an employee who is an eligible individual,

employer contributions (provided they are within the limits described in

A-12) to the employee's HSA are treated as employer-provided coverage for

medical expenses under an accident or health plan and are excludable from

the employee's gross income. The employer contributions are not subject to

withholding from wages for income tax or subject to the Federal Insurance

Contributions Act (FICA), the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), or the

Railroad Retirement Tax Act. Contributions to an employee's HSA through a

cafeteria plan are treated as employer contributions. The employee cannot

deduct employer contributions on his or her federal income tax return as

HSA contributions or as medical expense deductions under section 213.

Q-20. What is the tax treatment of an HSA?

A-20. An HSA is generally exempt from tax (like an IRA or Archer MSA),

unless it has ceased to be an HSA. Earnings on amounts in an HSA are not

includable in gross income while held in the HSA (i.e., inside buildup is

not taxable). See A-25 regarding the taxation of distributions to the

account beneficiary.

Q-21. When may HSA contributions be made? Is there a deadline for

contributions to an HSA for a taxable year?

A-21. Contributions for the taxable year can be made in one or more

payments, at the convenience of the individual or the employer, at any

time prior to the time prescribed by law (without extensions) for filing

the eligible individual's federal income tax return for that year, but not

before the beginning of that year. For calendar year taxpayers, the

deadline for contributions to an HSA is generally April 15 following the

year for which the contributions are made. Although the annual

contribution is determined monthly, the maximum contribution may be made

on the first day of the year. See A-22 regarding correcting excess

contributions.

Example: B has self-only coverage under an HDHP with a deductible of

$1,500 and also has an HSA. B's employer contributes $200 to B's HSA at

the end of every quarter in 2004 and at the end of the first quarter in

2005 (March 31, 2005). B can exclude from income in 2004 all of the

employer contributions (i.e., $1,000) because B's exclusion for all

contributions does not exceed the maximum annual HSA contributions. See

A-12.

Q-22. What happens when HSA contributions exceed the maximum amount

that may be deducted or excluded from gross income in a taxable year?

A-22. Contributions by individuals to an HSA, or if made on behalf of

an individual to an HSA, are not deductible to the extent they exceed the

limits described in A-12. Contributions by an employer to an HSA for an

employee are included in the gross income of the employee to the extent

that they exceed the limits described in A-12 or if they are made on

behalf of an employee who is not an eligible individual. In addition, an

excise tax of 6% for each taxable year is imposed on the account

beneficiary for excess individual and employer contributions.

However, if the excess contributions for a taxable year and the net

income attributable to such excess contributions are paid to the account

beneficiary before the last day prescribed by law (including extensions)

for filing the account beneficiary's federal income tax return for the

taxable year, then the net income attributable to the excess contributions

is included in the account beneficiary's gross income for the taxable year

in which the distribution is received but the excise tax is not imposed on

the excess contribution and the distribution of the excess contributions

is not taxed.

Q-23. Are rollover contributions to HSAs permitted?

A-23. Rollover contributions from Archer MSAs and other HSAs into an

HSA are permitted. Rollover contributions need not be in cash. Rollovers

are not subject to the annual contribution limits. Rollovers from an IRA,

from a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), or from a health flexible

spending arrangement (FSA) to an HSA are not permitted.



IV. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM HSAs.

Q-24. When is an individual permitted to receive distributions from an

HSA?

A-24. An individual is permitted to receive distributions from an HSA

at any time.

Q-25. How are distributions from an HSA taxed?

A-25. Distributions from an HSA used exclusively to pay for qualified

medical expenses of the account beneficiary, his or her spouse, or

dependents are excludable from gross income. In general, amounts in an HSA

can be used for qualified medical expenses and will be excludable from

gross income even if the individual is not currently eligible for

contributions to the HSA.

However, any amount of the distribution not used exclusively to pay for

qualified medical expenses of the account beneficiary, spouse or

dependents is includable in gross income of the account beneficiary and is

subject to an additional 10% tax on the amount includable, except in the

case of distributions made after the account beneficiary's death,

disability, or attaining age 65.

Q-26. What are the "qualified medical expenses" that are eligible for

tax-free distributions?

A-26. The term "qualified medical expenses" are expenses paid by the

account beneficiary, his or her spouse or dependents for medical care as

defined in section 213(d) (including nonprescription drugs as described in

Rev. Rul. 2003-102, 2003-38 I.R.B. 559), but only to the extent the

expenses are not covered by insurance or otherwise. The qualified medical

expenses must be incurred only after the HSA has been established. For

purposes of determining the itemized deduction for medical expenses,

medical expenses paid or reimbursed by distributions from an HSA are not

treated as expenses paid for medical care under section 213.

Q-27. Are health insurance premiums qualified medical expenses?

A-27. Generally, health insurance premiums are not qualified medical

expenses except for the following: qualified long-term care insurance,

COBRA health care continuation coverage, and health care coverage while an

individual is receiving unemployment compensation. In addition, for

individuals over age 65, premiums for Medicare Part A or B, Medicare HMO,

and the employee share of premiums for employer-sponsored health

insurance, including premiums for employer-sponsored retiree health

insurance can be paid from an HSA. Premiums for Medigap policies are not

qualified medical expenses.

Q-28. How are distributions from an HSA taxed after the account

beneficiary is no longer an eligible individual?

A-28. If the account beneficiary is no longer an eligible individual

(e.g., the individual is over age 65 and entitled to Medicare benefits, or

no longer has an HDHP), distributions used exclusively to pay for

qualified medical expenses continue to be excludable from the account

beneficiary's gross income.

Q-29. Must HSA trustees or custodians determine whether HSA

distributions are used exclusively for qualified medical expenses?

A-29. No. HSA trustees or custodians are not required to determine

whether HSA distributions are used for qualified medical expenses.

Individuals who establish HSAs make that determination and should maintain

records of their medical expenses sufficient to show that the

distributions have been made exclusively for qualified medical expenses

and are therefore excludable from gross income.

Q.-30. Must employers who make contributions to an employee's HSA

determine whether HSA distributions are used exclusively for qualified

medical expenses?

A-30. No. The same rule that applies to trustees or custodians applies

to employers. See A-29.

Q-31. What are the income tax consequences after the HSA account

beneficiary's death?

A-31. Upon death, any balance remaining in the account beneficiary's

HSA becomes the property of the individual named in the HSA instrument as

the beneficiary of the account. If the account beneficiary's surviving

spouse is the named beneficiary of the HSA, the HSA becomes the HSA of the

surviving spouse. The surviving spouse is subject to income tax only to

the extent distributions from the HSA are not used for qualified medical

expenses.

If, by reason of the death of the account beneficiary, the HSA passes

to a person other than the account beneficiary's surviving spouse, the HSA

ceases to be an HSA as of the date of the account beneficiary's death, and

the person is required to include in gross income the fair market value of

the HSA assets as of the date of death. For such a person (except the

decedent's estate), the includable amount is reduced by any payments from

the HSA made for the decedent's qualified medical expenses, if paid within

one year after death.



V. OTHER MATTERS.

Q-32. What discrimination rules apply to HSAs?

A-32. If an employer makes HSA contributions, the employer must make

available comparable contributions on behalf of all "comparable

participating employees" (i.e., eligible employees with comparable

coverage) during the same period. Contributions are considered comparable

if they are either the same amount or same percentage of the deductible

under the HDHP.

The comparability rule is applied separately to part-time employees

(i.e., employees who are customarily employed for fewer than 30 hours per

week). The comparability rule does not apply to amounts rolled over from

an employee's HSA or Archer MSA, or to contributions made through a

cafeteria plan. If employer contributions do not satisfy the comparability

rule during a period, the employer is subject to an excise tax equal to

35% of the aggregate amount contributed by the employer to HSAs for that

period.

Example: Employer X offers its collectively bargained employees three

health plans, including an HDHP with self-only coverage and a $2,000

deductible. For each employee electing the HDHP self-only coverage, X

contributes $1,000 per year on behalf of the employee to an HSA. X makes

no HSA contributions for employees who do not elect the HDHP. X's plans

and HSA contributions satisfy the comparability rule.

Q-33. Can an HSA be offered under a cafeteria plan?

A-33. Yes. Both an HSA and an HDHP may be offered as options under a

cafeteria plan. Thus, an employee may elect to have amounts contributed as

employer contributions to an HSA and an HDHP on a salary-reduction basis.

Q-34. What reporting is required for an HSA?

A-34. Employer contributions to an HSA must be reported on the

employee's Form W-2. In addition, information reporting for HSAs will be

similar to information reporting for Archer MSAs. The IRS will release

forms and instructions, similar to those required for Archer MSAs, on how

to report HSA contributions, deductions, and distributions.

Q-35. Are HSAs subject to COBRA continuation coverage under section

4980B?

A-35. No. Like Archer MSAs, HSAs are not subject to COBRA continuation

coverage.

Q-36. How do the rules under section 419 affect contributions by an

employer to an HSA?

A-36. Contributions by an employer to an HSA are not subject to the

rules under section 419. An HSA is a trust that is exempt from tax under

section 223. Thus, an HSA is not a "fund" under section 419(e)(3) and,

therefore, is not a "welfare benefit fund" under section 419(e)(1).

Q-37. May eligible individuals use debit, credit or stored-value cards

to receive distributions from an HSA for qualified medical expenses?

A-37. Yes.

Q-38. Are HSAs subject to other statutory rules and provisions?

A-38. Yes. HSAs are subject to other statutory rules and provisions not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shesemsmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
48. Mine doubled last year to 1000
per person and only applies to Hopsital bills and nothing else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allalone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-05 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
52. what's medical insurance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
54. Our Blue Shield deductible is
$750 per person, $1500 per family. That is double what it was a year ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
55. Sure is,
We went from a $250 to a $1700 deductible--also a BS/BC policy. So we just dropped it and took up a new policy with a new company with a $400 deductible.

Insurance is such a ponzi scheme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGonzoLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
56. I will be on Humana in about a week
and the co-pays are a hell of a lot less, even if you go with a PPO over the HMO (I'm not, because I'm cheap). Of course, prices may be chaper because it's through my company, not individual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charon Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
57. Copays/deductables
$150 per person, $300 family
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samurai_Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
58. Not mine...
For me alone, single with no kids, my annual deductible is $3,000! And then they only pay 80% after that, and ONLY if the doctors are in their network... which excludes 99% of the doctors within a 100 mile radius of where I live/work.

I've been going to the walk-in clinic and paying $50 per visit. It's cheaper than using the damned insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC