The IRS announced that the contribution limit for an individual would increase by $50 in 2012, from $3,050 to $3,100. The family contribution limit is increasing from $6,150 to $6,250 (+$100).
The maximum annual out-of-pocket increased as well. The individual out of pocket maximum is going from $5,950 to $6,050. The family out of pocket maximum is increasing from $11,900 to $12,100.
The minimum deductible on an HSA qualified plan remained the same, $1,200 for individuals and $2,400 for families.
For more details about HSAs and HSA qualified plans, visit our HSA page.
[...] I know that the law was written with good intentions, but we’re noticing that it’s the employees – the applicants who are trying to get individual health insurance policies – who get the short end of the stick. It’s the employees who end up getting their health insurance application declined. It’s the employees who end up having to pay for their own premiums in order to obtain coverage, even if they thought that they were going to be able to rely on some level of reimbursement from their employer.
The next open enrollment for child-only policies is almost here, so I thought it might be helpful to provide some specific details in terms of what policies are available and what parents should expect when submitting child-only applications next month.
The first open enrollment window in 2012 will be the month of January. Applications for child-only policies have to be submitted between January 1 and January 31. Application not submitted by the end of January will have to wait and re-submit in July, which is the second open-enrollment period of the year. For most carriers, each child in a family will have to have a separate application.
All eligible child-only applications submitted during the open enrollment period are guaranteed issue, so the child cannot be refused coverage. However, the applications are still medically underwritten and the rate can be increased by up to 200% based on the child’s medical history (so if the standard price is $100, the policy could actually be assigned a rate of $300, which is equal to a 200% rate increase).
Colorado Senate Bill 128 requires all Colorado health insurance carriers that offer coverage for adults to also offer child-only plans during the two annual open enrollment windows. But the bill does not require carriers to provide guaranteed issue coverage for children who are eligible for health insurance from another source (other than a high risk pool like CoverColorado or GettingUSCovered – see the bottom of page 4).
Most Colorado carriers have selected one or two plan designs that will be available for child-only applications next month. To give you an idea of what is available in Colorado for child-only coverage, we’re providing information here regarding child-only options from six of the top individual health insurance carriers in the state. [...]
[...] Sandy’s daughter ended up getting an individual health insurance policy for $143/month. But individual health insurance in Colorado is medically underwritten (and will be for almost two more years until the guaranteed-issue provision of the ACA begins in 2014), which means that she had to be relatively healthy in order to qualify for coverage and/or avoid an underwriting rate increase. The benefit of the ACA rule that allows young adults to remain on their parents’ plan is that there is no need for additional underwriting – the coverage is continuous, regardless of any new medical issues that might have arisen since the plan was originally purchased. This can be very useful for young adults with pre-existing conditions who haven’t yet secured a job that provides guaranteed issue group health insurance coverage.
I don’t know what percentage of the population is covered by retiree-only health plans, but it seems that group might be more likely than others to have children who are young adults. I’m sure Sandy and her husband aren’t the only parents to have found out that the ACA doesn’t apply to their retiree-only health plan. [...]
[...] Jaan Sidorov’s article about health insurance exchanges is really good (and I had to read it to figure out the correct answer to the question for his post – it was one of the two I missed). He notes that it’s a bit illogical that so many of us are willing to spend hours comparison shopping for a new TV, but feel put out if we have to spend much time at all comparison shopping for health insurance. And he laments the fact that health insurance exchanges are in their very early days but already are being dismissed by some as too complicated for the average consumer to figure out.
[...] I’m still a fan of consumer directed health plans, high deductibles, and HSAs. I think that they can be useful tools to help people keep their health insurance premiums as low as possible and also (if an HSA is involved) set aside pre-tax money to cover potential future medical bills. But they are not a panacea. They are probably not a good solution for anyone who has a chronic illness that needs ongoing, expensive care. They don’t work so well for people with very little money who would struggle to cover the relatively high out-of-pocket costs and would not likely be able to fund an HSA. And no matter how great the actual consumer directed health plans are, the fact remains that transparency with regards to healthcare costs is still quite elusive. For some procedures, it can be relatively easy to get a set figure up front in terms of how much it’s going to cost. But much of the time that number can be difficult or impossible to pin down. Obviously, complications can arise in any medical situation (and the resulting increase in costs would make earlier estimates irrelevant). But even without factoring in complications, “shopping around” for healthcare is often an exercise in futility. In order to make consumer directed health plans more effective, there is much work to be done with regards to cost transparency.
[...] Although the Republican-led Colorado House passed the measure, Democratic lawmakers were not impressed. They chided the Republicans for wasting time and money on a resolution that isn’t going to end up going anywhere (presumably because of the extremely slim chances of having two thirds of the states pass a similar measure).
Given the fact that the legality of the ACA is going to come before the Supreme Court this year, I agree that the new Colorado resolution seems like a waste of legislative time. The Supreme Court will tell us whether or not the federal government has the right to make health insurance mandatory, and the states that are taking the opposing position on the matter have already joined in a lawsuit to express their position. Hopefully Colorado’s lawmakers will work together from both sides of the aisle and move on to other issues that are facing the state.
