Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Disney Magic
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:20:47 -0500, PocoLoco wrote: Thanks for quoting Harry's response. It seems to lend credence to what my daughter has heard. I just did a little search on this issue. Depending on the state, not only might she have insurance problems, she might also have employment problems. Not common, but still possible, depending on circumstances. I would suggest Harry's idea about maintaining anonymity might be best. There is federal legislation to address this, but . . . http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/9/865 Since John's daughter is already insured under a group policy, she can never be rejected (or quoted a higher premium) by another group because she is protected by COBRA. She *could* have problems with medically underwritten individual plans though. From the link "Few Americans have health coverage from organizations that pick and choose whom to cover on the basis of health, using what is called medical underwriting. More than 160 million Americans receive coverage through an employer, whether their own, their spouse's or partner's, or that of another relative. Few large-scale employers ever selectively provided health coverage on the basis of an employee's medical condition; the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 prohibited almost all employers but those in the smallest businesses from using such medical underwriting and from considering genetic risks as preexisting conditions. More than 80 million Americans are covered by federal or federal-state programs - notably, Medicare and Medicaid - that do not use medical underwriting. Very few of the more than 40 million Americans without health coverage lack it because of genetic discrimination; most simply do not qualify for governmental coverage and either cannot afford or choose not to pay for employer-provided or individually underwritten coverage. That leaves only about 10 to 15 million Americans who buy their own, individually underwritten coverage, along with perhaps an equal number with coverage from very small employers. Only the people in these two groups can be at risk for genetic discrimination by insurance companies. But the same health care financing system that limits the possibilities for genetic discrimination by insurers encourages such discrimination in employment. Employers have an incentive to reduce their future health insurance costs by not hiring or by firing people who have predictably high health care expenses, for genetic or other reasons. The law provides a second barrier against genetic discrimination. In the past decade or so, all but 3 states have adopted laws limiting genetic discrimination for some kinds of health insurance, and about 40 states have fairly strong rules against discrimination by small employers or companies that sell individual health insurance. More than 30 states ban or limit genetic discrimination in employment.5 The coverage, definitions, and enforcement mechanisms vary enormously from state to state; none of the relevant laws appear to have been defined or tested in any reported appellate-court decisions. In addition, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, may more broadly prohibit genetic discrimination in employment, depending on whether the genetic risk is considered a disability. Another federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against current employees on the basis of their existing or projected health care expenses. Although the exact reach of these federal laws is unclear, they - along with state laws and the prospect of more stringent legislation in the future - have largely deterred insurers and employers from practicing such discrimination." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|