/PRNewswire/ -- A new issue brief from the Center for State and Local Government Excellence finds that the economy has slowed the ability of local governments to address long-term funding of their retiree health care obligations.
The brief follows up on a 2009 survey in which 206 local governments indicated they were likely to adopt a long-term strategy to strengthen their retiree health care funding, including:
-- establishing a Section 115 trust (governmental); medical subaccount
[401(h)]; or Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) trust
[501(c)(9)];
-- issuing OPEB bonds;
-- increasing the years of service for vesting for RHC;
-- increasing the age at which RHC is available;
-- terminating retiree health care for all new hires.
Since then, the economy, insufficient revenues, and competing budget priorities have posed the greatest impediment to their plans.
The new brief finds that many jurisdictions are making sweeping changes in their retiree health care plans:
-- 36 percent have increased or plan to increase the years of service
required to vest.
-- 11 percent have increased the retirement age.
-- 39 percent have eliminated or plan to eliminate retiree health
benefits for new hires.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Court Ruling Vindicates Lawsuits Against ObamaCare
/PRNewswire/ -- The first decision in the many lawsuits against ObamaCare, in a case brought by the State of Virginia, has just been handed down. It is a resounding repudiation of the arguments against this litigation.
Promoters of a Big Government/ Big Insurance takeover of American medicine have claimed that constitutional challenges to ObamaCare are frivolous and baseless. They say the unprecedented government intrusion is fully constitutional, citing the power of Congress to impose taxes and to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal court in Virginia rejected the arguments made by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In a scholarly, 32-page opinion, the court held that "No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."
Forcing all Americans to buy costly insurance that they do not want is the foundation on which ObamaCare rests. Without it, ObamaCare collapses. Other lawsuits, including the one brought by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in the District of Columbia, and one brought by a number of States in Florida, also challenge this mandate.
"The decision by the court in Virginia confirms the legitimacy of challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare in court," states AAPS General Counsel Andrew Sechlafly. "This is a victory for freedom, and a real setback to the enemies of freedom in medicine."
The court reiterated that "the existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation." As Virginia pointed out, "a decision not to purchase a product, such as health insurance, is not an economic activity. It is a virtual state of repose--or idleness--the converse of activity."
Although the majority of practicing physicians oppose ObamaCare's massive intrusion into medical practice, and a large percentage have indicated that they may quit practicing as a result, AAPS is so far the only long-established, national medical association to ask a court to overturn a key provision of the law (see www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit/). Where is the American Medical Association (AMA) when physicians and patients need it most?
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Promoters of a Big Government/ Big Insurance takeover of American medicine have claimed that constitutional challenges to ObamaCare are frivolous and baseless. They say the unprecedented government intrusion is fully constitutional, citing the power of Congress to impose taxes and to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal court in Virginia rejected the arguments made by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In a scholarly, 32-page opinion, the court held that "No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."
Forcing all Americans to buy costly insurance that they do not want is the foundation on which ObamaCare rests. Without it, ObamaCare collapses. Other lawsuits, including the one brought by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in the District of Columbia, and one brought by a number of States in Florida, also challenge this mandate.
"The decision by the court in Virginia confirms the legitimacy of challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare in court," states AAPS General Counsel Andrew Sechlafly. "This is a victory for freedom, and a real setback to the enemies of freedom in medicine."
The court reiterated that "the existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation." As Virginia pointed out, "a decision not to purchase a product, such as health insurance, is not an economic activity. It is a virtual state of repose--or idleness--the converse of activity."
Although the majority of practicing physicians oppose ObamaCare's massive intrusion into medical practice, and a large percentage have indicated that they may quit practicing as a result, AAPS is so far the only long-established, national medical association to ask a court to overturn a key provision of the law (see www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit/). Where is the American Medical Association (AMA) when physicians and patients need it most?
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Sunday, July 04, 2010
HHS Secretary Sebelius Announces New Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on July 1 the establishment of a new Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) that will offer coverage to uninsured Americans who have been unable to obtain health coverage because of a pre-existing health condition.
The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, which will be administered either by a state or by the Department of Health and Human Services, will provide a new health coverage option for Americans who have been uninsured for at least six months, have been unable to get health coverage because of a health condition, and are a U.S. citizen or are residing in the United States legally.
Created under the Affordable Care Act, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is a transitional program until 2014, when insurers will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions, and individuals and small businesses will have access to more affordable private insurance choices through new competitive Exchanges. In 2014, Members of Congress will also purchase their insurance through Exchanges.
“For too long, Americans with pre-existing conditions have been locked out of our health insurance market,” said Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan gives them a new option – the same insurance coverage as a healthy individual if they’ve been uninsured for at least six months because of a medical condition. This program will provide people the help they need as the nation transitions to a more competitive and fair market place in 2014.”
The Affordable Care Act provides $5 billion in federal funding to support Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans in every state. Some states have requested that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services run their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Other states have requested that they run the program themselves. For more information about how the plan is being administered where you live, please visit HHS’ new consumer website, www.HealthCare.gov.
“Health coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions has historically been unobtainable or failed to cover the very conditions for which they need medical care,” said Jay Angoff, Director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) which is overseeing the program. “The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is designed to address these challenges by offering comprehensive coverage at a reasonable cost. We modeled the program on the highly successful Children’s Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP, so states would have maximum flexibility to meet the needs of their citizens.”
In order to give states the flexibility to best meet their needs, HHS provided states with the option of running the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan themselves or having HHS run the plan. Twenty-one states have elected to have HHS administer the plans, while 29 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to run their own programs.
Starting today, the national Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan will be open to applicants in the 21 states where HHS is operating the program.
All states which are operating their own Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans will begin enrollment by the end of the summer, with many beginning enrollment today.
“The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is an important next step in the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” said Richard Popper, Director of Insurance Programs at OCIIO. “We have been working closely with the states and other stakeholders to make sure this program reaches uninsured Americans struggling to find coverage due to a pre-existing condition.”
The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan will cover a broad range of health benefits, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, and prescription drugs. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan does not base eligibility on income and does not charge a higher premium because of a medical condition. Participants will pay a premium that is not more than the standard individual health insurance premium in their state for insurance that covers major medical and prescription drug expenses with some cost-sharing.
Like the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Pre-Existing Condition Plan provides states flexibility in how they run their program as long as basic requirements are met. Federal law establishes general eligibility, but state programs can vary on cost, benefits, and determination of pre-existing condition. Funding for states is based on the same allocation formula as CHIP, and it will be reallocated if unspent by the states. Unlike CHIP, there is no state matching requirement and the federal government will cover the entire cost of the Pre-Existing Condition Plan. While it took more than 6 months for a small number of states to establish their CHIP programs, we anticipate that every state will begin enrolling individuals in the Pre-Existing Condition Plan by the end of August.
Information on how to apply for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is available at www.HealthCare.gov. Americans who live in a state where the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is running the Pre-Existing Condition Plan will be linked directly to the federal application page. Those living in states running their own programs will also find information on how and where to apply on www.HealthCare.gov.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, which will be administered either by a state or by the Department of Health and Human Services, will provide a new health coverage option for Americans who have been uninsured for at least six months, have been unable to get health coverage because of a health condition, and are a U.S. citizen or are residing in the United States legally.
Created under the Affordable Care Act, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is a transitional program until 2014, when insurers will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions, and individuals and small businesses will have access to more affordable private insurance choices through new competitive Exchanges. In 2014, Members of Congress will also purchase their insurance through Exchanges.
“For too long, Americans with pre-existing conditions have been locked out of our health insurance market,” said Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan gives them a new option – the same insurance coverage as a healthy individual if they’ve been uninsured for at least six months because of a medical condition. This program will provide people the help they need as the nation transitions to a more competitive and fair market place in 2014.”
The Affordable Care Act provides $5 billion in federal funding to support Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans in every state. Some states have requested that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services run their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Other states have requested that they run the program themselves. For more information about how the plan is being administered where you live, please visit HHS’ new consumer website, www.HealthCare.gov.
“Health coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions has historically been unobtainable or failed to cover the very conditions for which they need medical care,” said Jay Angoff, Director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (OCIIO) which is overseeing the program. “The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is designed to address these challenges by offering comprehensive coverage at a reasonable cost. We modeled the program on the highly successful Children’s Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP, so states would have maximum flexibility to meet the needs of their citizens.”
In order to give states the flexibility to best meet their needs, HHS provided states with the option of running the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan themselves or having HHS run the plan. Twenty-one states have elected to have HHS administer the plans, while 29 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to run their own programs.
Starting today, the national Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan will be open to applicants in the 21 states where HHS is operating the program.
All states which are operating their own Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans will begin enrollment by the end of the summer, with many beginning enrollment today.
“The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is an important next step in the overall implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” said Richard Popper, Director of Insurance Programs at OCIIO. “We have been working closely with the states and other stakeholders to make sure this program reaches uninsured Americans struggling to find coverage due to a pre-existing condition.”
The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan will cover a broad range of health benefits, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, and prescription drugs. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan does not base eligibility on income and does not charge a higher premium because of a medical condition. Participants will pay a premium that is not more than the standard individual health insurance premium in their state for insurance that covers major medical and prescription drug expenses with some cost-sharing.
Like the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Pre-Existing Condition Plan provides states flexibility in how they run their program as long as basic requirements are met. Federal law establishes general eligibility, but state programs can vary on cost, benefits, and determination of pre-existing condition. Funding for states is based on the same allocation formula as CHIP, and it will be reallocated if unspent by the states. Unlike CHIP, there is no state matching requirement and the federal government will cover the entire cost of the Pre-Existing Condition Plan. While it took more than 6 months for a small number of states to establish their CHIP programs, we anticipate that every state will begin enrolling individuals in the Pre-Existing Condition Plan by the end of August.
Information on how to apply for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is available at www.HealthCare.gov. Americans who live in a state where the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is running the Pre-Existing Condition Plan will be linked directly to the federal application page. Those living in states running their own programs will also find information on how and where to apply on www.HealthCare.gov.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Insurance Industry Facing Uncertain Regulatory Environment, Competitive Shake-Up, Says PricewaterhouseCoopers Report
/PRNewswire/ -- The insurance industry may not see a return to relative stability and certainty for a few years as it reacts to the effects of regulatory reform, increased government intervention and potential tax law changes in the aftermath of the financial crisis, said PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in a report released today. Within five years, the industry landscape could look markedly different, and Americans may find their insurance policies underwritten by a handful of large, well-capitalized firms that can demonstrate financial strength and economies of scale.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report, entitled "Emerging from the Storm: The Day After Tomorrow for Insurance," outlines nine key developments that are expected to reshape the insurance industry and their strategic implications during the next five years. The most significant of these developments for U.S. insurers will likely be sweeping regulatory changes resulting from proposed legislation to reform health insurance and increase federal oversight of insurance and financial industries.
The majority of regulation of insurance firms in the U.S. occurs at the state level, but there is political pressure to expand federal oversight. Creation of a Federal Insurance Office could provide federal policymakers with the information and resources to better respond to crises, mitigate systemic risks and help ensure a well-functioning financial system, but it could also lead to dual regulation at both the state and federal levels.
"Insurers are in the business of managing risk and measuring probability. They don't like uncertainty, yet they are facing two massive reform initiatives, the outcomes of which are unknown but could alter their destiny," said Bill Chrnelich, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers' insurance sector. "Some insurers are taking a cautious, wait and see approach, while others see this period as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape their future."
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the insurers most likely to succeed once regulatory changes are enacted are those that closely monitor developments and create business strategies that anticipate the most likely possibilities for reform. In addition, they will carefully factor the following considerations into their business decisions:
-- Insurance Industry consolidation: The U.S. insurance market remains
highly fragmented, and the strong underlying rationale for
consolidation and restructuring means that merger and acquisition
activity may be set to accelerate rapidly, particularly as larger,
better-capitalized firms consume smaller firms. Consolidation is
expected to help to deliver the capital stability and economies of
scale that will be important in attracting customers and demonstrating
financial strength not only to ratings agencies but also to
third-party distributors whose "ownership of the customer" makes them
a key determinant of an insurers' fate.
-- The end of innocence for retail investors: The faith of investors, who
had become accustomed to high yields but were unaware of the related
risks, appears to have given way to shock, disillusionment and
caution. The pursuit of innovation appears to have been displaced by
a focus on stability, risk management and demand for simpler, more
straightforward and transparent policies and investment products such
as index-linked investments. An example of this is the recent
resurgence in demand for whole life insurance. The apparent desire
for guarantees, however, could create dilemmas for insurance companies
that want to scale back such products as they seek to limit risk.
Potentially higher costs of risk and guarantees, along with what may
be higher commission payments to distributors, could change product
economics, and insurers will need to better understand component
costs, pricing and profit profiles.
-- Mounting uncertainty over tax: As debts and fiscal deficits mount,
governments are looking for ways to increase their tax revenues. They
will look closely at insurance companies, as the industry is a major
source of potential tax receipts and has moved significant business
capacity to other jurisdictions in recent years. Accordingly,
insurers can expect renewed scrutiny of their tax planning techniques,
as well as more stringent requirements for transparency and
information exchange relating to clients.
-- Organic restructuring: As a result of the financial crisis, many
insurers have been forced to raise prices, restrict the pursuit of new
business or withdraw from high risk and peripheral markets. As
insurers withdraw from some of their geographic markets and scale back
particular lines of business, the market shares and opportunities for
those that remain could sharply increase, leading to a significant
reconfiguration in the list of leading players. Companies with a
better understanding of their risks are likely to be in a stronger
position to capitalize on potential openings that less-informed and
less-assured competitors may miss.
-- Rethinking insurance financial reporting: Many insurance executives
justifiably complain that their share prices fail to reflect the true
level of value being created within their business. Without an
industry consensus on a genuinely relevant, intelligible, and
comparable basis of accounting and disclosure, insurers may find it
increasingly difficult to compete for capital. With funds
constrained, many portfolio investors could simply choose to put their
money elsewhere, leaving the insurance industry with major challenges.
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, it seems imperative that the
industry come together to develop a basis of relevant disclosures that
reflect the nuances of their business and satisfy analyst and investor
demands.
-- Blurring the lines between the public and private sector: The
relationship between the public and private sectors could change as
the government exerts a stronger influence over the insurance market
as a result of bailouts, regulatory reform, and greater control over
pensions, healthcare, trade credit and mortgage support.
-- Greater scrutiny of executive compensation: Two concerns raised by the
financial crisis were the lack of understanding of risk at the board
of directors' level and compensation for senior executives. With
appointment of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, in
the United States, insurers are likely to base much more of their
performance-related pay on risk-adjusted measures, aligned to their
business strategy. They also are expected to face tougher regulation
over how compensation is governed.
-- Challenging prospects for reinsurers: While demand for reinsurance is
likely to increase within emerging markets, this is unlikely to offset
the decline in reinsurance buying in developed markets and may force
many reinsurers to rethink how they sustain profitability and growth.
The trend toward higher retention of straightforward risks could
accelerate. As companies become more risk-aware through advances in
enterprise risk management, they will be better able to choose what
risks to retain and which to reinsure.
"There is only one certainty for the insurance industry: change is coming and, as a result, the competitive landscape will be very different in five years from what exists today," added Chrnelich. "This will jeopardize some insurers' business, but it should also enable those who are better prepared to excel in a new environment. Success will likely depend on close monitoring of developments and the ability to quickly capitalize on opportunities as reforms and changes within the industry become clearer."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report, entitled "Emerging from the Storm: The Day After Tomorrow for Insurance," outlines nine key developments that are expected to reshape the insurance industry and their strategic implications during the next five years. The most significant of these developments for U.S. insurers will likely be sweeping regulatory changes resulting from proposed legislation to reform health insurance and increase federal oversight of insurance and financial industries.
The majority of regulation of insurance firms in the U.S. occurs at the state level, but there is political pressure to expand federal oversight. Creation of a Federal Insurance Office could provide federal policymakers with the information and resources to better respond to crises, mitigate systemic risks and help ensure a well-functioning financial system, but it could also lead to dual regulation at both the state and federal levels.
"Insurers are in the business of managing risk and measuring probability. They don't like uncertainty, yet they are facing two massive reform initiatives, the outcomes of which are unknown but could alter their destiny," said Bill Chrnelich, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers' insurance sector. "Some insurers are taking a cautious, wait and see approach, while others see this period as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape their future."
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the insurers most likely to succeed once regulatory changes are enacted are those that closely monitor developments and create business strategies that anticipate the most likely possibilities for reform. In addition, they will carefully factor the following considerations into their business decisions:
-- Insurance Industry consolidation: The U.S. insurance market remains
highly fragmented, and the strong underlying rationale for
consolidation and restructuring means that merger and acquisition
activity may be set to accelerate rapidly, particularly as larger,
better-capitalized firms consume smaller firms. Consolidation is
expected to help to deliver the capital stability and economies of
scale that will be important in attracting customers and demonstrating
financial strength not only to ratings agencies but also to
third-party distributors whose "ownership of the customer" makes them
a key determinant of an insurers' fate.
-- The end of innocence for retail investors: The faith of investors, who
had become accustomed to high yields but were unaware of the related
risks, appears to have given way to shock, disillusionment and
caution. The pursuit of innovation appears to have been displaced by
a focus on stability, risk management and demand for simpler, more
straightforward and transparent policies and investment products such
as index-linked investments. An example of this is the recent
resurgence in demand for whole life insurance. The apparent desire
for guarantees, however, could create dilemmas for insurance companies
that want to scale back such products as they seek to limit risk.
Potentially higher costs of risk and guarantees, along with what may
be higher commission payments to distributors, could change product
economics, and insurers will need to better understand component
costs, pricing and profit profiles.
-- Mounting uncertainty over tax: As debts and fiscal deficits mount,
governments are looking for ways to increase their tax revenues. They
will look closely at insurance companies, as the industry is a major
source of potential tax receipts and has moved significant business
capacity to other jurisdictions in recent years. Accordingly,
insurers can expect renewed scrutiny of their tax planning techniques,
as well as more stringent requirements for transparency and
information exchange relating to clients.
-- Organic restructuring: As a result of the financial crisis, many
insurers have been forced to raise prices, restrict the pursuit of new
business or withdraw from high risk and peripheral markets. As
insurers withdraw from some of their geographic markets and scale back
particular lines of business, the market shares and opportunities for
those that remain could sharply increase, leading to a significant
reconfiguration in the list of leading players. Companies with a
better understanding of their risks are likely to be in a stronger
position to capitalize on potential openings that less-informed and
less-assured competitors may miss.
-- Rethinking insurance financial reporting: Many insurance executives
justifiably complain that their share prices fail to reflect the true
level of value being created within their business. Without an
industry consensus on a genuinely relevant, intelligible, and
comparable basis of accounting and disclosure, insurers may find it
increasingly difficult to compete for capital. With funds
constrained, many portfolio investors could simply choose to put their
money elsewhere, leaving the insurance industry with major challenges.
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, it seems imperative that the
industry come together to develop a basis of relevant disclosures that
reflect the nuances of their business and satisfy analyst and investor
demands.
-- Blurring the lines between the public and private sector: The
relationship between the public and private sectors could change as
the government exerts a stronger influence over the insurance market
as a result of bailouts, regulatory reform, and greater control over
pensions, healthcare, trade credit and mortgage support.
-- Greater scrutiny of executive compensation: Two concerns raised by the
financial crisis were the lack of understanding of risk at the board
of directors' level and compensation for senior executives. With
appointment of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, in
the United States, insurers are likely to base much more of their
performance-related pay on risk-adjusted measures, aligned to their
business strategy. They also are expected to face tougher regulation
over how compensation is governed.
-- Challenging prospects for reinsurers: While demand for reinsurance is
likely to increase within emerging markets, this is unlikely to offset
the decline in reinsurance buying in developed markets and may force
many reinsurers to rethink how they sustain profitability and growth.
The trend toward higher retention of straightforward risks could
accelerate. As companies become more risk-aware through advances in
enterprise risk management, they will be better able to choose what
risks to retain and which to reinsure.
"There is only one certainty for the insurance industry: change is coming and, as a result, the competitive landscape will be very different in five years from what exists today," added Chrnelich. "This will jeopardize some insurers' business, but it should also enable those who are better prepared to excel in a new environment. Success will likely depend on close monitoring of developments and the ability to quickly capitalize on opportunities as reforms and changes within the industry become clearer."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, March 02, 2009
Government To Help Pay Health Insurance For Out Of Work Americans
(SPM Wire) Americans who lost their jobs or will lose their jobs anytime between September 1, 2008 and the end of 2009 are about to find it easier to afford health care insurance.
The federal government has announced it temporarily will pay for 65 percent of the cost of health insurance for laid-off workers who lost their jobs during this period.
This provision was signed into law as part of the recent economic stimulus plan and will provide people with up to nine months of partial payments for their health care premiums. The money is available to those whose yearly adjusted gross income doesn't exceed $125,000 or $250,000 for those who file their taxes jointly.
The payments will be made through what is known as COBRA, a federal regulation that allows employees to keep their company health insurance for up to 18 months after they leave their jobs. Now, the government will help subsidize 65 percent of ex-employee COBRA premium payments if they lost their jobs during the qualifying period.
And workers who had turned down COBRA benefits can reapply and receive the subsidy if their layoffs occurred since September 1, 2008.
The new stimulus plan covers premium payments for coverage periods beginning after February 17 - the date the plan was signed into law - and is not retroactive for coverage prior to this date.
Don't wait too long to apply for the new government subsidy, as there is a window during which you are eligible, depending on when you lost your job.
There is some fine print, however, as many Americans who have been recently terminated worked for companies with fewer than 20 employees. These small businesses generally aren't eligible for COBRA, since it only applies to businesses employing more than 20 individuals. Speak with your employer if you have any questions.
For more information about COBRA, which itself became law in 1985, visit the U.S. Department of Labor Web site at www.dol.gov.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The federal government has announced it temporarily will pay for 65 percent of the cost of health insurance for laid-off workers who lost their jobs during this period.
This provision was signed into law as part of the recent economic stimulus plan and will provide people with up to nine months of partial payments for their health care premiums. The money is available to those whose yearly adjusted gross income doesn't exceed $125,000 or $250,000 for those who file their taxes jointly.
The payments will be made through what is known as COBRA, a federal regulation that allows employees to keep their company health insurance for up to 18 months after they leave their jobs. Now, the government will help subsidize 65 percent of ex-employee COBRA premium payments if they lost their jobs during the qualifying period.
And workers who had turned down COBRA benefits can reapply and receive the subsidy if their layoffs occurred since September 1, 2008.
The new stimulus plan covers premium payments for coverage periods beginning after February 17 - the date the plan was signed into law - and is not retroactive for coverage prior to this date.
Don't wait too long to apply for the new government subsidy, as there is a window during which you are eligible, depending on when you lost your job.
There is some fine print, however, as many Americans who have been recently terminated worked for companies with fewer than 20 employees. These small businesses generally aren't eligible for COBRA, since it only applies to businesses employing more than 20 individuals. Speak with your employer if you have any questions.
For more information about COBRA, which itself became law in 1985, visit the U.S. Department of Labor Web site at www.dol.gov.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)