Virginia Anthem rate increased 19 %

[Nestof3]

Our monthly premium went from $507 to $602 a month. Last year it increased 25 %.

 

We pay $602 a month for insurance that doesn't pay anything until we reach an annual $5,000 deductible (which has only happened once).

 

:glare:

[TravelingChris]

I am not surprised. After all, "free" benefits have to be paid somehow. I am sure this will get deleted but I have a hard time understanding why there are so many adults who don't get this concept, including many in elected offices.

 

:grouphug:, that is really a painful increase, particularly as hopefully you won't ever get a benefit from it.

[Nestof3]

According to some articles, it regards legislation requiring extra stuff/people to be covered. Our son goes off our plan in August, but I'm not sure how much he is.

[ThisIsTheDay]

Our monthly premium went from $507 to $602 a month. Last year it increased 25 %.

 

We pay $602 a month for insurance that doesn't pay anything until we reach an annual $5,000 deductible (which has only happened once).

 

:glare:

 

We experienced the same incredible increase earlier this year with VA Anthem. I carry a policy for me and my two kids. Four years ago, it was ~$200/month. It increased a few dollars the first year. Last year, I'm thinking it was ~$220 but can't remember. This year, it jumped up to $370/month. We have a deductible similar to yours.

 

ETA: We only go to the doctor now when absolutely necessary (to continue medication, for example). Two of us have issues that should be addressed by a physician, but I worry that one will result in x-rays and a recommendation to go home and rest for six months. The other will result in an $$$ prescription that I can't afford anyway. After years of wonderful health are, we have now been effectively priced out.

Edited June 29, 2012 by ThisIsTheDay

[Lady Florida.]

Our insurance has gone up every year for the past ten years, and in some cases coverage was scaled back. This is employer provided insurance from dh's job. ACA can't be blamed for previous increases, yet apparently it can be blamed for current and future increases. :confused:

 

I hope this isn't considered a political link, but FactCheck.org says only 1-3% of recent increases can be attributed to ACA. The rest is greed IMO.

 

http://factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/

[KRG]

We got an email earlier this week that our insurance rates are going up this year but there won't be any change in coverage for the 2012 year...I hope it was a typo because September starts the 2013 coverage year...

[Mommyof4ks]

Our insurance went up for the first time in years this year due to new regulations. It will only get worse now that everyone is required to have it or face fines. I hear Bolivia is nice and they are growing. :001_smile:

[Momof3littles]

Our insurance has gone up every year for the past ten years, and in some cases coverage was scaled back. This is employer provided insurance from dh's job. ACA can't be blamed for previous increases, yet apparently it can be blamed for current and future increases. :confused:

 

I hope this isn't considered a political link, but FactCheck.org says only 1-3% of recent increases can be attributed to ACA. The rest is greed IMO.

 

http://factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/

 

Exactly!!!! FWIW, DH works for a small business and during his first year there it would have been 10K to add our family to his work policy. We opted for a private policy with a higher deductible (6K OOP max). His employer kicks back into an HSA or HRA (I forget, my apologies) what it would have cost to insure DH. This past year they got the rate down to about 7K to add on our family. We are still doing the higher deductible plan. I point that out only because people are convinced small business owners are going to eliminate insurance completely for employees or the rates will skyrocket because of the ACA. At DH's small co.the plan was good last year and it is good this year as well, and the price has dropped *substantially* to add a family on.

 

Our good friend works at a huge company (DH used to work there as well). We had pretty much a Cadillac plan when we were there. DH left that company and his friend is still there. The employee expected contribution has been rising steadily over the last 7-8 years. DH considered returning there for the benefits originally. However, it ends up being a wash because to add a family on, it isn't much different than what we are paying for a private policy. And this is at a world-renowned company that everyone knows.

 

The issue of benefits decreasing as contribution and costs to the employer rise is not new, and has not just increased due to the ACA. Costs were climbing and OOP expenses climbing as well for years before the ACA.

 

FWIW, I worked in healthcare as a PT before becoming a SAHM.

 

eta: I will look up a source for this later if I get a chance but I think the insurance companies actually agreed to the ACA "no pre existing conditions can be excluded" clause in exchange for everyone having to be insured? IIRC they were actually in on crafting that part.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Momof3littles

[TravelingChris]

I just went on the Government web site. Provisions like "free" preventative health care went into place in 2010. Other things that made the plans more expensive have also incurred such as all children must be covered at the same cost. My source is http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html#2010

 

A lot of the costs are that health care costs have risen higher than the inflation rate for quite a few years. One of the continuing problems of our overall economic problems is that when people have less money, they skimp on health care. Then little problems end up being big problems and those cost more.

Also, many problems that 40 years ago would have meant death do not anymore. (I am not saying this is a bad problem). But that means that someone who would have died of a heart attack, cancer, or many other diseases now lives and requires medical treatment to live. Such people who would have died 40 or 50 years ago are all around us and probably are a number of our relatives and/or friends. But that does increase costs.

[stripe]

I just went on the Government web site. Provisions like "free" preventative health care went into place in 2010. Other things that made the plans more expensive have also incurred such as all children must be covered at the same cost. My source is http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html#2010

 

I think preventive care saves money. That one free check up might find diabetes which saves an amputation down the line.

 

Show me the health insurance CEO who's not a millionare and I'll give you a virtual hug.

 

And a :grouphug: to you, Dawn.

 

The idea that it's perfectly fine to keep collecting money, to provide limited to no service, makes me ill.

[Momof3littles]

 

The idea that it's perfectly fine to keep collecting money, to provide limited to no service, makes me ill.

:iagree:

And that's part of the ACA-

 

Look at the medical care loss ratio issue: (overhead vs. what is spent on patient care)

 

http://www.bna.com/insurers-pay-11-b12884910172/

 

from the above:

Health insurers will pay $1.1 billion in rebates that will benefit 12.8 million policyholders by Aug. 1, the Department of Health and Human Services announced June 21. Insurers are required to make the rebates under the medical loss ratio provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if they did not spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical claims or quality improvements for individual and small group plans, or at least 85 percent for large group plans.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2012 by Momof3littles

[shinyhappypeople]

Really, instead of complaining about those that may be receiving healthcare on the backs of other taxpayers (because you know that that was their entire goal in life), perhaps we should all be complaining about the government and the insurance companies being in bed with one another. Perhaps we should take about frivolous lawsuits and physicians' insurance companies. Maybe, just maybe, we should talk about the simple fact that healthcare has become unaffordable...for the middle class, for the lower class, for companies, for the government, and etc. Basically, we're all getting screwed one way or another.

 

:iagree: Well said!

 

It wasn't always this way. According to my FIL, it wasn't until the introduction of HMOs that health care costs got really out of hand.

[Momof3littles]

I said I'd update if I could find a link. Not the easiest thing to search for as the terms I was trying bring up any number of topics on this issue.

 

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP, a lobbying group for Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna, etc.) pushed for the individual mandate.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/06/17/mandate-to-buy-coverage-health-insurance-industrys-idea-not-obamas/

[mommaduck]

I said I'd update if I could find a link. Not the easiest thing to search for as the terms I was trying bring up any number of topics on this issue.

 

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP, a lobbying group for Aetna, UnitedHealth, Cigna, etc.) pushed for the individual mandate.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/06/17/mandate-to-buy-coverage-health-insurance-industrys-idea-not-obamas/

 

No surprise.

 

One thing I heard (bringing up for discussion...not sure what I think about it) is that because of the "not allowed to refuse for pre-existing conditions", the ins. companies claim they needed the individual mandate to pay for those (as many are continuing or extreme conditions). True, not true?

[A home for their hearts]

Our monthly premium went from $507 to $602 a month. Last year it increased 25 %.

 

We pay $602 a month for insurance that doesn't pay anything until we reach an annual $5,000 deductible (which has only happened once).

 

:glare:

 

This is why we dropped our insurance a year ago. My husband works for a small company, approx. 100 employees so the premiums are ridiculous. We were going to have to pay $400 every other week for insurance plus a $7,500 deductable, with a $25 office co-pay before and after the deductable would be meet. We aren't the type to rush to the doctor/emergency room for every little hiccup. We barely ever go to the doctor so it made more since for us to save the money we would have to pay for premiums and just self-pay when we go to the doctors. Some doctors will even give a discount if you self-pay since they don't have to wait forever to get paid by an insurance company.

 

I don't think the new laws are going to help, I just think it's going to make the system worse. As always, the low-income will be able to have free medical care, which is wonderful we've had to use it in the past, the very rich can afford the ridicoulsy high insurance rates, and the middle-class will foot the bill for everyone else and end up getting screwed. Just my honest opinion. ;)

Edited June 29, 2012 by A home for their hearts

[Momof3littles]

This is why we dropped our insurance a year ago. My husband works for a small company, approx. 100 employees so the premiums are ridiculous. We were going to have to pay $400 every other week for insurance plus a $75,000 deductable, with a $25 office co-pay before and after the deductable would be meet. We aren't the type to rush to the doctor/emergency room for every little hiccup. We barely ever go to the doctor so it made more since for us to save the money we would have to pay for premiums and just self-pay when we go to the doctors. Some doctors will even give a discount if you self-pay since they don't have to wait forever to get paid by an insurance company.

 

I don't think the new laws are going to help, I just think it's going to make the system worse. As always, the low-income will be able to have free medical care, which is wonderful we've had to use it in the past, the very rich can afford the ridicoulsy high insurance rates, and the middle-class will foot the bill for everyone else and end up getting screwed. Just my honest opinion. ;)

One of the concerns about yesterday's ruling is what is going to happen in the states that do not have to expand their Medicaid. I wouldn't say the poor are going to have free care.

 

eta:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57463122/medicaid-expansion-could-help-millions-but-not-all-states-want-in/

 

Those who don't qualify will supposedly get some subsidies toward insurance. You are still going to have poor people going without coverage, I fear.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Momof3littles

[Momof3littles]

No surprise.

 

One thing I heard (bringing up for discussion...not sure what I think about it) is that because of the "not allowed to refuse for pre-existing conditions", the ins. companies claim they needed the individual mandate to pay for those (as many are continuing or extreme conditions). True, not true?

Well, I don't know what the numbers are, but there have been many analyses saying yes, that is true. That's part of why they pushed for it. But I guess I don't feel like they are getting "hosed" or anything as insurance companies. Under the ACA they have to cover pre-existing conditions, they need to show they are spending a good % of premiums on actual care, and they now theoretically will have larger pools to divvy up the risk of taking on those with pre-existing conditions. So the coverage of pre-existing conditions is popular with the public, but at the same time a significant percentage of those people dislike the mandate :confused:

 

Most analyses say, yes, you need the large pool to divide up the risk. I mean, catch 22 there...if you want pre-existing issues covered, you need to have a very large pool (which comes in the form of an individual mandate). But people don't want the mandate, yet want to see pre-existings covered.

 

There have been many analyses showing the financial need for the mandate, although I haven't looked at them in quite some time.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Momof3littles

[mommaduck]

This is why we dropped our insurance a year ago. My husband works for a small company, approx. 100 employees so the premiums are ridiculous. We were going to have to pay $400 every other week for insurance plus a $75,000 deductable, with a $25 office co-pay before and after the deductable would be meet. We aren't the type to rush to the doctor/emergency room for every little hiccup. We barely ever go to the doctor so it made more since for us to save the money we would have to pay for premiums and just self-pay when we go to the doctors. Some doctors will even give a discount if you self-pay since they don't have to wait forever to get paid by an insurance company.

 

I don't think the new laws are going to help, I just think it's going to make the system worse. As always, the low-income will be able to have free medical care, which is wonderful we've had to use it in the past, the very rich can afford the ridicoulsy high insurance rates, and the middle-class will foot the bill for everyone else and end up getting screwed. Just my honest opinion. ;)

Two things here:

 

1. I have NEVER heard of a $75k deductible.

 

2. Many low-income people do not get healthcare. Their children can get free healthcare. Pregnant women can get free healthcare. Disabled people can get free healthcare. If you are female and not pregnant or disabled...or if you are male and not disabled...you get no free healthcare.

[shinyhappypeople]

No surprise.

 

One thing I heard (bringing up for discussion...not sure what I think about it) is that because of the "not allowed to refuse for pre-existing conditions", the ins. companies claim they needed the individual mandate to pay for those (as many are continuing or extreme conditions). True, not true?

 

It's worth noting that I am (was?) uninsurable not because of a chronic health condition, but because I took 1 or 2 cycles of clomid about 10 years ago when we were TTC.

 

I am not overweight.

I've had no serious illnesses beyond maybe a UTI every 4 or 5 years(if that).

I haven't inherited any predisposition for any of the usual suspects (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.).

 

I AM HEALTHY AND (WAS) UNINSURABLE. (sorry for shouting. I feel pretty passionately about this.)

 

Having me (and thousands of others like me) on an insurance plan will not hurt an insurance company's profits. Uninsurable does not equal chronically ill.

[Momof3littles]

It's worth noting that I am (was?) uninsurable not because of a chronic health condition, but because I took 1 or 2 cycles of clomid about 10 years ago when we were TTC.

 

I am not overweight.

I've had no serious illnesses beyond maybe a UTI every 4 or 5 years(if that).

I haven't inherited any predisposition for any of the usual suspects (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.).

 

I AM HEALTHY AND (WAS) UNINSURABLE. (sorry for shouting. I feel pretty passionately about this.)

 

Having me (and thousands of others like me) on an insurance plan will not hurt an insurance company's profits. Uninsurable does not equal chronically ill.

I have PCOS and did fertility treatments (IUI and injectables, tried clomid to no avail prior to that). Pregnancy is excluded on my private insurance plan, as is anything related to my PCOS (fertility treatments, etc.). Thankfully I take metformin, which is $4 a month at Costco without insurance, so it is affordable to deal with even with it not covered. I don't plan to have any more children.

[mommaduck]

It's worth noting that I am (was?) uninsurable not because of a chronic health condition, but because I took 1 or 2 cycles of clomid about 10 years ago when we were TTC.

 

I am not overweight.

I've had no serious illnesses beyond maybe a UTI every 4 or 5 years(if that).

I haven't inherited any predisposition for any of the usual suspects (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.).

 

I AM HEALTHY AND (WAS) UNINSURABLE. (sorry for shouting. I feel pretty passionately about this.)

 

Having me (and thousands of others like me) on an insurance plan will not hurt an insurance company's profits. Uninsurable does not equal chronically ill.

 

No, I understand and believe it. I wasn't saying that everyone is. The subject came up on the news and specifically focused on a family with a little girl that has a chronic illness, in need of regular (expensive) meds, and even in need of a transplant (I believe). There are many like this and that was what the ins. companies were complaining about. No, people like you wouldn't make a dent in an insurance company. That's just them being pissy, imo.

 

(and I understand being passionate about it. I think everyone is and everyone has a right to be)

[Mom-ninja.]

Our insurance have been increasing for the last several years. Same company (my dh works for a hospital...oh the irony), less coverage, yet higher cost for us.

 

I agree with a pp. Let's get pissy with the insurance companies for starters.

[Aelwydd]

We have been on 3 different insurance plans since 2003, the year our son was born. They have all gone up an average of 20% each year. For example, in 2006, our PPO with PHCS cost us $385/month, with a $1,000 year deductible. The next year, it went up to $420/month, with a $2,000 year deductible. The year after that, the same plan jumped to $550/month, with a large number of procedures falling under "deductible" first. X-rays, which had previously been covered as an "office visit" procedure, became subject to a deductible first, meaning we had to pay 2 grand before such costs were touched by insurance.

 

I've kept our yearly "benefits explanations" letters on file, just to keep track of how much these things have gone up so to be able to estimate future costs.

 

My dh worked at the time for a county health program, so you'd think we'd get halfway decent benefits.

 

Last year, I got hired with a large tech company, and the insurance and benefits costs went down, with a much, much better benefits package. I still expect our insurance costs to go up in the fall when we renew.

 

I suppose you could blame the costs of increasing healthcare soley on ACA, but then you'd have to find a way to retroactively blame all the ridiculous increases that have been going on previous to the passage and implementation of the bill. FTR, most of the bill has not implemented, so it's premature to say that the 19% increase in VA's Anthem is due to ACA.

[lovinmomma]

Two things here:

 

1. I have NEVER heard of a $75k deductible.

 

2. Many low-income people do not get healthcare. Their children can get free healthcare. Pregnant women can get free healthcare. Disabled people can get free healthcare. If you are female and not pregnant or disabled...or if you are male and not disabled...you get no free healthcare.

 

That's me. Me and my 3 children are living off of the $1400 or less per month that I make. My children can get healthcare, but I can't. That's why I haven't been to the doctor in years (since my dd was born) and that's why I don't get issues that I have checked out. I also try my best to treat things naturally, but it's hard to even afford that.

[Momof3littles]

That's me. Me and my 3 children are living off of the $1400 or less per month that I make. My children can get healthcare, but I can't. That's why I haven't been to the doctor in years (since my dd was born) and that's why I don't get issues that I have checked out. I also try my best to treat things naturally, but it's hard to even afford that.

:grouphug:

[Bearcat]

 

http://www.bna.com/insurers-pay-11-b12884910172/

 

from the above:

Health insurers will pay $1.1 billion in rebates that will benefit 12.8 million policyholders by Aug. 1, the Department of Health and Human Services announced June 21. Insurers are required to make the rebates under the medical loss ratio provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if they did not spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical claims or quality improvements for individual and small group plans, or at least 85 percent for large group plans.

 

 

 

But, the largest insurance companies are not even going to have to rebate any money because they are already operating within these 80-85% ranges. Yes, some companies will be making rebates because they are poorly run/organized. But those are, generally speaking, the smaller companies.

Insurance is big money. They take in a lot of money but they spend a lot of money as well. Wellpoint made a 3% profit last year and they are the largest insurance company in the country. 3% does not seem like a staggering huge profit. Yes, it might be a large dollar amount when you look at that alone but when you consider how much they spent, on medical claims, not administrative costs (including salaries for all employees) it is not that huge after all.

[TravelingChris]

3% profit is actually considered low. Grocery stores typically have those type of profits and they are one of the industries with the lowest profits. (If anyone wonders why people would still run grocery with low profits since those run typically about 2-3%, the owners or stockholders generally take the smaller profits which tend to stay even with a recession or depression over the higher profits which can fluctuate with economic problems. Also grocery stores are low profit because they are close to having true competition- not entirely competitive pricing since people do favor some grocery stores over others not just based on price, but much more so than many other private enterprises since they tend to sell the same things and so compete on price a lot).

[Momof3littles]

But, the largest insurance companies are not even going to have to rebate any money because they are already operating within these 80-85% ranges. Yes, some companies will be making rebates because they are poorly run/organized. But those are, generally speaking, the smaller companies.

Insurance is big money. They take in a lot of money but they spend a lot of money as well. Wellpoint made a 3% profit last year and they are the largest insurance company in the country. 3% does not seem like a staggering huge profit. Yes, it might be a large dollar amount when you look at that alone but when you consider how much they spent, on medical claims, not administrative costs (including salaries for all employees) it is not that huge after all.

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5ttmd.html

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/health-insurer-profit-rises-as-obama-s-health-law-supplies-revenue-boost.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html

 

THis is from HuffPo, but it is an editorial that gives an argument about the insurance industry using return on equity vs. profit numbers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/the-truth-about-health-in_b_863632.html

 

from the HuffPo blog piece above discussing "profit margin" vs. "return on equity"

AHIP's focus on profit margins is misleading and designed to protect their massive income by shifting attention away from their return on equity -- a key measure of profits as a percentage of the amount invested. That return is a phenomenal 16.1% as of today. By that measure, health insurers are ranked fourth highest of the 16 industries in the health care sector. They also deliver a higher return for investors than cellphone companies, beer companies, mortgage companies, life insurance companies, TV broadcasters, drug store companies or grocery stores.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Momof3littles

[LMA]

This is why we dropped our insurance a year ago. My husband works for a small company, approx. 100 employees so the premiums are ridiculous. We were going to have to pay $400 every other week for insurance plus a $75,000 deductable, with a $25 office co-pay before and after the deductable would be meet. We aren't the type to rush to the doctor/emergency room for every little hiccup. We barely ever go to the doctor so it made more since for us to save the money we would have to pay for premiums and just self-pay when we go to the doctors. Some doctors will even give a discount if you self-pay since they don't have to wait forever to get paid by an insurance company.

 

I don't think the new laws are going to help, I just think it's going to make the system worse. As always, the low-income will be able to have free medical care, which is wonderful we've had to use it in the past, the very rich can afford the ridicoulsy high insurance rates, and the middle-class will foot the bill for everyone else and end up getting screwed. Just my honest opinion. ;)

 

Are you sure it wasn't for $7,500? The rates you quote are about right for that kind of policy.

[mommaduck]

That's me. Me and my 3 children are living off of the $1400 or less per month that I make. My children can get healthcare, but I can't. That's why I haven't been to the doctor in years (since my dd was born) and that's why I don't get issues that I have checked out. I also try my best to treat things naturally, but it's hard to even afford that.

We're there also. :grouphug:

[A home for their hearts]

Two things here:

 

1. I have NEVER heard of a $75k deductible.

 

2. Many low-income people do not get healthcare. Their children can get free healthcare. Pregnant women can get free healthcare. Disabled people can get free healthcare. If you are female and not pregnant or disabled...or if you are male and not disabled...you get no free healthcare.

 

Sorry, that was a typo and I fixed it. I meant $7,500.

 

My whole family was on medicaid 3 years ago. I received it, you could say because I was pregnant at the time, but my dh was covered as well.

[mommaduck]

Sorry, that was a typo and I fixed it. I meant $7,500.

 

My whole family was on medicaid 3 years ago. I received it, you could say because I was pregnant at the time, but my dh was covered as well.

 

Okay, I was wondering if it was a typo...whew! Could you imagine?

 

They refuse to cover my husband. If a job offers insurance, even if it takes half your pay, they will refuse you. This has been our experience in two states.

[A home for their hearts]

They refuse to cover my husband. If a job offers insurance, even if it takes half your pay, they will refuse you. This has been our experience in two states.

 

It's just plain stupid that they refuse peopel when you would basically be working just to pay for insurance.

 

I hate the new mandate as well. I really don't know everything about it but I don't think it's fair if we are going to be force to pay for insurance at my dh work when the price is so high. We will be opting to pay the penalty.

[QueenCat]

Most analyses say, yes, you need the large pool to divide up the risk. I mean, catch 22 there...if you want pre-existing issues covered, you need to have a very large pool (which comes in the form of an individual mandate). But people don't want the mandate, yet want to see pre-existings covered.

 

It makes sense that you would need the ind. mandate in order to require pre-existing conditions to be covered. If you didn't, people wouldn't get insurance until they got sick.

[QueenCat]

Our insurance have been increasing for the last several years. Same company (my dh works for a hospital...oh the irony), less coverage, yet higher cost for us.

 

It's interesting to see so many different experiences. The worst increases we saw were 7-8 years ago. Much better the past few years but I know, at least with people on this board, that is rare.

[QueenCat]

I suppose you could blame the costs of increasing healthcare soley on ACA, but then you'd have to find a way to retroactively blame all the ridiculous increases that have been going on previous to the passage and implementation of the bill. FTR, most of the bill has not implemented, so it's premature to say that the 19% increase in VA's Anthem is due to ACA.

 

:iagree:Good points.

[Momof3littles]

It makes sense that you would need the ind. mandate in order to require pre-existing conditions to be covered. If you didn't, people wouldn't get insurance until they got sick.

Yes, that too! I forgot to mention it but absolutely correct.

[Tammyla]

I'm sad, but not surprised.

 

Our monthly premium went from $507 to $602 a month. Last year it increased 25 %.

 

We pay $602 a month for insurance that doesn't pay anything until we reach an annual $5,000 deductible (which has only happened once).

 

:glare: