Adult dependents can stay on their parents' group or individual health-insurance plans until their 26th birthday under the new federal health-care overhaul provision that took effect last month.
The child doesn't have to be in college or live with parents to qualify. He or she can be married, although a child's spouse can't be put on a parent's plan.
Many parents of adult and college-age children may be wondering if this is the way to go or whether adult kids should stick with other options, such as an individual health-insurance policy, public health programs for low-income adults or student health plans.
Currently, about 30% of adults age 19 to 29 are uninsured, a problem the law was meant to help address. Some states, including New Jersey and New Mexico, already had similar laws. But age limits and requirements varied.
Most Employers Included
Under the new law, most big employers will make adult-child health-insurance coverage available for workers starting in the open-enrollment period this fall for the plan year beginning in January 2011, though some may permit enrollment sooner.
In states where some adult children can stay on parents' plans beyond age 26, employers must abide by state laws, says Dean Hatfield, senior vice president and corporate health leader at Sibson Consulting.
About 75% of employers surveyed by human-resources consultant HighRoads said employers will include information about this and other health-care reform provisions in their materials during open enrollment. Parents have to be provided with a written notice by the first day of the plan year.
The new law applies to all health-insurance plans created after March 2010. If the plan existed before March, an employer can opt to exclude young adults if they have access to an employer-sponsored plan of their own, Mr. Hatfield says. (The rule remains in effect until 2014, when all adult kids will be able to get on a parent's plan.)
Parents also can put adult children on their Cobra plan, which allows terminated workers to continue under their former employer's group health-insurance plan. And adult children who have passed a state's age limit for Cobra coverage under a parent's plan in the last 60 days may be able to stay or get back on the plan, says Phil Lebherz, executive director of the Foundation for Health Care Coverage.
Limited Added Cost
From an insured parent's standpoint, it's hard to beat the cost savings of keeping an adult child on a parent's employer-provided health plan, some experts say.
Covered employees pay an average of 30% of the premium for family coverage under group health insurance and employers pay the rest, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Employees who pay part of the premium often have only two options -- individual and family -- so an additional dependent typically doesn't cost much more.
If there's a gap before you can sign up an adult child for coverage, look for a short-term insurance plan or other health plan, including public plans for low-income adults and families. One resource: the Foundation for Health Care Coverage, coverageforall.org or 1-800-234-1317. A Spanish-language edition is at espanol.coverageforall.org.
Check for exclusions, co-pays and deductibles if you opt for an individual plan. Also, check whether an employer-provided or individual plan covers your child in another state.
วันอาทิตย์ที่ 10 ตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2553
The Conservatives' child benefit plans sent precisely the wrong signal
As they staggered from the train wreck that was the child benefit fiasco last week, Tory spokesmen were handed a new message to enunciate. Stumbling glassy-eyed around the receptions in Birmingham, they recited pretty much word-for-word the new official defence: this measure was admittedly not much of a step towards dismantling the deficit (in the weird times in which we live, a saving of a billion pounds is relative peanuts) but it was intended as a “signal” that the well-off were going to have to bear their share of the burden.
Well, the signal it was supposed to send got blown away in about 20 minutes. In the blizzard of condemnation which made clear that this testament to “fairness” was quite grotesquely unfair to traditional families with a single earner, and to couples who had made the mistake of actually marrying (cohabiting parents will be unaffected, since there is no way of proving that they are connected to one another), an even more unfortunate signal escaped unnoticed.
The Conservatives have been making a real effort over the past year to take back the word “fair” from the Left. Labour has always used the word as synonymous with “equal”: if wealth or achievement was not evenly distributed, then that fact in itself meant that we lived in an unfair society and that this injustice needed to be rectified by government intervention. Many of the speeches at the Conservative Party conference this year (including David Cameron’s) made the case quite explicitly that the proper meaning of the word “fair” involved just rewards for effort and virtuous behaviour, rather than everybody ending up with roughly the same outcome, however much or little they had contributed.
This is, as I am getting tired of saying, what most people believe: that getting something for nothing, while other people are working hard for what they have, is not fair at all. Of course, there must be compassion and protection for those who are truly the victims of disadvantage. But generally speaking, a fair society is one in which you get out of life pretty much what you put in. This is perhaps the single most important argument for the Tories to win if they are to have a hope of changing the country in the way that they must.
But what exactly was the concept of fairness that was being invoked in the farrago over middle-class child benefit? That the affluent (on £44,000 a year – cue hollow laughter from the south-east of England) must expect to lose their benefit payments just as the poor will lose theirs: that if the welfare-dependent classes are to have fewer state handouts, then the prosperous will have to take their share of the cuts, too – because “we are all in this together”.
Well, the signal it was supposed to send got blown away in about 20 minutes. In the blizzard of condemnation which made clear that this testament to “fairness” was quite grotesquely unfair to traditional families with a single earner, and to couples who had made the mistake of actually marrying (cohabiting parents will be unaffected, since there is no way of proving that they are connected to one another), an even more unfortunate signal escaped unnoticed.
The Conservatives have been making a real effort over the past year to take back the word “fair” from the Left. Labour has always used the word as synonymous with “equal”: if wealth or achievement was not evenly distributed, then that fact in itself meant that we lived in an unfair society and that this injustice needed to be rectified by government intervention. Many of the speeches at the Conservative Party conference this year (including David Cameron’s) made the case quite explicitly that the proper meaning of the word “fair” involved just rewards for effort and virtuous behaviour, rather than everybody ending up with roughly the same outcome, however much or little they had contributed.
This is, as I am getting tired of saying, what most people believe: that getting something for nothing, while other people are working hard for what they have, is not fair at all. Of course, there must be compassion and protection for those who are truly the victims of disadvantage. But generally speaking, a fair society is one in which you get out of life pretty much what you put in. This is perhaps the single most important argument for the Tories to win if they are to have a hope of changing the country in the way that they must.
But what exactly was the concept of fairness that was being invoked in the farrago over middle-class child benefit? That the affluent (on £44,000 a year – cue hollow laughter from the south-east of England) must expect to lose their benefit payments just as the poor will lose theirs: that if the welfare-dependent classes are to have fewer state handouts, then the prosperous will have to take their share of the cuts, too – because “we are all in this together”.
Health Reform to Cover Most Young Adults by 2014
More than 12 million of the nation's 15 million uninsured young adults ages 19 to 29 may be able to get health insurance in 2014 as a result of the healthcare reform law, according to a report released Friday by the Commonwealth Fund.
"By providing multiple insurance options for young adults at key life transition points, including graduation from high school and college, the law will significantly reduce both the short- and long-term gaps in health insurance that have historically plagued this age group at all income levels," wrote Sara Collins and Jennifer Nicholson, both of the Commonwealth Fund.
The number of uninsured young adults rose from 13.7 million in 2008 to 14.8 million in 2009. In addition, 5 million insured 20-somethings have very high out-of-pocket costs, leaving them effectively underinsured, the authors noted.
"By providing multiple insurance options for young adults at key life transition points, including graduation from high school and college, the law will significantly reduce both the short- and long-term gaps in health insurance that have historically plagued this age group at all income levels," wrote Sara Collins and Jennifer Nicholson, both of the Commonwealth Fund.
The number of uninsured young adults rose from 13.7 million in 2008 to 14.8 million in 2009. In addition, 5 million insured 20-somethings have very high out-of-pocket costs, leaving them effectively underinsured, the authors noted.
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)