Older children on parents health insurance

[Gamom3]

Anyone know anything about this? Our oldest ds(21) just lost his job. We don't want him without health insurance and want to find out about putting him on ours. I know they can be on our insurance until 26, but I don't know if they have to be in school, if they have to be living with us or if that will make our rates go up.

 

Does anyone know?

[Sophia]

My parents' insurance would not let me stay on after I graduated college at age 21. Of course, that was 25 years ago, but somehow I doubt insurance companies are more generous nowadays.

Maybe you can help him keep his insurance through Cobra(?).

Isn't that where he can stay on with his employer's insurance for a period of time, but pay a higher premium?

[Melinda in VT]

It really depends on your insurance policy.

 

I am in the process of switching employers, and my new employer allows dependents to stay on the insurance until age 26, even if they are married and living elsewhere.

 

Even if they allow it in general, it might be tough to add your son in the middle of the year. You might need to wait until the next enrollment opportunity.

 

You should talk to your insurance company and/or the HR department of your employer.

[Laurel]

As far as I know, there aren't any restrictions. My sisters (who both just graduated from college this past spring) are both still on my parents' insurance, and they don't live with them.

 

Here's a fact sheet about the act.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

My parents' insurance would not let me stay on after I graduated college at age 21. Of course, that was 25 years ago, but somehow I doubt insurance companies are more generous nowadays.

Maybe you can help him keep his insurance through Cobra(?).

Isn't that where he can stay on with his employer's insurance for a period of time, but pay a higher premium?

 

I don't know any details, but it's one of the provisions in the latest healthcare bill.

[jplain]

My parents' insurance would not let me stay on after I graduated college at age 21. Of course, that was 25 years ago, but somehow I doubt insurance companies are more generous nowadays.

No, they aren't more generous. But the law has changed, so they don't get a choice. :D

The OP should be able to get coverage for her son. See the fact sheet linked above.

Edited November 2, 2010 by jplain

[plansrme]

I am an employee benefits attorney, and you have received a mixture of correct and incorrect information above.

 

One of the things healthcare reform included was that health insurance plans and policies have to cover non-dependent children to age 26, beginning as of the first plan year that begins on or after 9/23/10.If your renewal year is 1/1/11, this does not kick in until 1/1/11. Some plans, however, permitted adult children who were aging out in 2010 to stay on from until their next renewal date, to avoid having to take them off for a month or two and then put them back in, so you should check with your employer or insurance carrier. In any event, you will have to affirmatively enroll him as soon as you are able to do so, either now or in annual enrollment.

 

Note that the requirement does not apply to stand-alone dental and vision, just medical, so unless dental and vision are included in your medical coverage, or your employer or insurer voluntarily decided to extend coverage to adult children to keep dental and vision the same as medical, he's on his own for those coverages.

 

Terri

[Crimson Wife]

It shouldn't cost you any additional premiums if you're on a family plan unless you've got one of those family plans that charge different rates depending on the number of covered dependents.

[Donna A.]

I am an employee benefits attorney, and you have received a mixture of correct and incorrect information above.

 

One of the things healthcare reform included was that health insurance plans and policies have to cover non-dependent children to age 26, beginning as of the first plan year that begins on or after 9/23/10.If your renewal year is 1/1/11, this does not kick in until 1/1/11. Some plans, however, permitted adult children who were aging out in 2010 to stay on from until their next renewal date, to avoid having to take them off for a month or two and then put them back in, so you should check with your employer or insurance carrier. In any event, you will have to affirmatively enroll him as soon as you are able to do so, either now or in annual enrollment.

 

Note that the requirement does not apply to stand-alone dental and vision, just medical, so unless dental and vision are included in your medical coverage, or your employer or insurer voluntarily decided to extend coverage to adult children to keep dental and vision the same as medical, he's on his own for those coverages.

 

Terri

 

I knew the new law required them to stay on until age 26, but I wonder, does that also apply if the adult child is married?

[plansrme]

I knew the new law required them to stay on until age 26, but I wonder, does that also apply if the adult child is married?

 

Yes. Married, single, employed or not. Well, "grandfathered" plans get a one-year pass (maybe 2 years--would have to check) on covering employed adult children who have coverage through their own employers, but very, very few plans are grandfathered.

 

If your adult child has children, it does not extend to the grandchildren.

 

Terri

[ColoradoMom]

My daughter is one mine and she is 20 - but I think that was a provision of my benefits package and not the health care bill because I renew every May and she's never been off of it.

[Donna A.]

Yes. Married, single, employed or not.

 

Now THAT burns my cookies! :angry:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Now THAT burns my cookies! :angry:

 

I am confused. Is it not a good thing to allow people more access to healthcare which the Healthcare Reform law provides for? Some people, even married people, may not have health care offered at their jobs or they may have only poor healthcare insurance offered at their jobs. Others may be unemployed:(. Health insurance and especially good health insurance can be the difference between life and death or going broke and losing everything or not. IMHO I think affording more access for healthcare insurance is a good thing:).

[TheCoffeeChick]

I am confused. Is it not a good thing to allow people more access to healthcare which the Healthcare Reform law provides for? Some people, even married people, may not have health care offered at their jobs or they may have only poor healthcare insurance offered at their jobs. Others may be unemployed:(. Health insurance and especially good health insurance can be the difference between life and death or going broke and losing everything or not. IMHO I think affording more access for healthcare insurance is a good thing:).

 

:iagree: My brother is 19 and will be getting married this upcoming summer. He and his wife-to-be are still full-time college students and will be for a couple more years. They will both stay on their parents' insurance until they get a job with insurance coverage of their own. It is one of the few things I agree with on the health bill. If they weren't able to do this, they'd probably end up just living together while in college instead of getting married.

[Donna A.]

Old enough to get married means old enough to take on the responsibilities of being married. My dh and I have literally *fought* our way through the years trying to survive while he goes to school and works to provide for us at the same time. If my dd marries someone who doesn't have his college degree before they get married, and he feels the need to go college after they're married, then that's something they're going to have to work out between themselves as a married couple.

 

Does that mean I wouldn't want to HELP my dd (or son, if I had one) if they got into a bad situation and temporarily needed help? Of course not. But I don't think it's the government's place to tell my dh and I that we have to provide my married son or dd's health care, ONLY because they married before the age of 26.

 

Helping my adult child -- by my OWN choice -- if/when she (and her dh, if married) get into a bad spot is a totally different scenario than the government forcing me to do something that she (and her dh, if married) have the responsibility to do for themselves. If my dd is 19 years old, still in college (or not) and UNmarried, we're GLAD to continue to provide for her health needs, or at least help as much as possible. If my dd is 19 years old, still in college (or not) and married... well, she and her guy made that choice themselves. I may CHOOSE to step in and help after they get to a certain point, if I see they aren't able to pull out of it on their own. But... you get married, then we're suddenly talking apples and oranges as far as parental "obligations".

 

If they choose to live together w/o being married just because of health care costs, food costs, housing costs, or any other "adult responsibility" issue, then that's another whole topic altogether that we would be addressing separately.

 

But then again... I believe in the biblical principle of "leave and cleave" when you get married, so my opinion is heavily weighted by that. :tongue_smilie:

[Renee in NC]

Old enough to get married means old enough to take on the responsibilities of being married. My dh and I have literally *fought* our way through the years trying to survive while he goes to school and works to provide for us at the same time. If my dd marries someone who doesn't have his college degree before they get married, and he feels the need to go college after they're married, then that's something they're going to have to work out between themselves as a married couple.

 

Does that mean I wouldn't want to HELP my dd (or son, if I had one) if they got into a bad situation and temporarily needed help? Of course not. But I don't think it's the government's place to tell my dh and I that we have to provide my married son or dd's health care, ONLY because they married before the age of 26.

 

Helping my adult child -- by my OWN choice -- if/when she (and her dh, if married) get into a bad spot is a totally different scenario than the government forcing me to do something that she (and her dh, if married) have the responsibility to do for themselves. If my dd is 19 years old, still in college (or not) and UNmarried, we're GLAD to continue to provide for her health needs, or at least help as much as possible. If my dd is 19 years old, still in college (or not) and married... well, she and her guy made that choice themselves. I may CHOOSE to step in and help after they get to a certain point, if I see they aren't able to pull out of it on their own. But... you get married, then we're suddenly talking apples and oranges as far as parental "obligations".

 

If they choose to live together w/o being married just because of health care costs, food costs, housing costs, or any other "adult responsibility" issue, then that's another whole topic altogether that we would be addressing separately.

 

But then again... I believe in the biblical principle of "leave and cleave" when you get married, so my opinion is heavily weighted by that. :tongue_smilie:

 

The bill does not REQUIRE that you or anyone else put their adult children on their health insurance, it is an option.

 

And, it is your choice on how you raise/support your children and what you expect them to do at different ages. Thank goodness we all get the same choice.

 

ETA: My *choice* is to help my dc get ahead however I can, even keeping them on my health insurance if needed. I will probably require a non-student adult child to pay for it themselves as well (meaning if it costs me more, they will have to pay for it.)

Edited November 2, 2010 by Renee in FL

[Jenny in Atl]

Old enough to get married means old enough to take on the responsibilities of being married.

 

I'm not sure I see this as any different than being able to get a cheaper rate through a group policy. Now, if the parent it paying for the adult/child, then that's a different matter. But, if the adult/child can get a less expensive rate as a member of a family policy, I don't see the fuss.

[TheCoffeeChick]

Wow! Who knew that was going to open a can of worms! :tongue_smilie:

 

It's not going to cost my parents anything to keep my married brother on their insurance. And, yeah, he'll pay his own doctor bills. All that would be different is that he'll have insurance as a married student instead of not having it. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.

 

I got married at 19 also ... it would have been nice to have insurance during those beginning years of our marriage. We didn't and we worked hard to pay off our doctor bills ourselves, but why does everyone else have to go through those hard times just because I did? :001_huh:

[wapiti]

:iagree: My brother is 19 and will be getting married this upcoming summer. He and his wife-to-be are still full-time college students and will be for a couple more years. They will both stay on their parents' insurance until they get a job with insurance coverage of their own. It is one of the few things I agree with on the health bill. If they weren't able to do this, they'd probably end up just living together while in college instead of getting married.

 

FWIW, many (most?) colleges offer student health insurance (I had student health insurance in grad school and had quite decent care, and so did my DH, before we were married - we were in our late 20s), though there was an issue with the new law that unfortunately may prohibit such policies from being "qualifying" plans - I vaguely recall seeing some articles recently about it.

Edited November 2, 2010 by wapiti

[Garga]

Call your health insurance company. The rules are different from company to company AND from plan to plan within each company. You could hear 20 different answers from each of us, and they could all be inapplicable to your plan.

[plansrme]

The bill does not REQUIRE that you or anyone else put their adult children on their health insurance, it is an option.

 

The bill does require your employer or insurer to offer you, the parent, the option to cover the adult child.

 

So I guess that requiring a big, nameless, faceless corporation who is not me to cover my child is okay; requiring little ol' me to do the same thing is not?

 

Terri

[plansrme]

It's not going to cost my parents anything to keep my married brother on their insurance.

 

This is going the way of the dodo bird. I have more and more clients who are eliminating "family" coverage, where it's one price/family, regardless of size, and instead moving towards charging by the head. They are starting off with surcharges for families with 3 or more children or surcharges for spouses who have coverage available elsewhere (one big employer just completely exluded spouses who have coverage available elsewhere), but charging "by the bellybutton" is where they are going to end up.

 

Terri

Edited November 2, 2010 by plansrme

[Lawana]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Terri, but the amount that a company contributes for a child that is not a tax dependant will then be taxed as imbued income, and any part contributed by the parent must be paid for in after tax dollars.

[plansrme]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Terri, but the amount that a company contributes for a child that is not a tax dependant will then be taxed as imbued income, and any part contributed by the parent must be paid for in after tax dollars.

 

Not any more. This changed when h'care reform went into effect. It even changed early for plans that implemented early.

 

Terri

[Donna A.]

So I guess that requiring a big, nameless, faceless corporation who is not me to cover my child is okay; requiring little ol' me to do the same thing is not?

 

Terri

 

I don't like that, either, Terri. :confused:

[QueenCat]

I am confused. Is it not a good thing to allow people more access to healthcare which the Healthcare Reform law provides for? Some people, even married people, may not have health care offered at their jobs or they may have only poor healthcare insurance offered at their jobs. Others may be unemployed:(. Health insurance and especially good health insurance can be the difference between life and death or going broke and losing everything or not. IMHO I think affording more access for healthcare insurance is a good thing:).

 

:iagree: I'm with you on this one! Thankfully, dh's employer has included dependents up to age 26 for years.

[stripe]

My parents' insurance would not let me stay on after I graduated college at age 21. Of course, that was 25 years ago, but somehow I doubt insurance companies are more generous nowadays.

They're not. The government has made them be.

[Renee in NC]

The bill does require your employer or insurer to offer you, the parent, the option to cover the adult child.

 

So I guess that requiring a big, nameless, faceless corporation who is not me to cover my child is okay; requiring little ol' me to do the same thing is not?

 

Terri

 

Should they be required to? I have no idea. I don't know why they offered that particular part of the law. I am not sure that the law is going to do anything other than raise everyone's premiums. We'll have to see.

 

You cannot require a parent to provide for a child once they turn 18 - that was the only point I was trying to make. It is an option for all parents, though - they can if they choose. That was what I said - the gov't does not require you to cover them, even if it is offered.

 

Do you really think this is moral decision (as far as it being "okay"?) Insurance comapnies have choices, too. They can choose to no longer offer group plans. They can choose to no longer offer health insurance at all. Most will keep offering it because even with adding adult children on, it's very profitable. It's a business decision all around.