OT: Should I be upset about new insurance requirements?

[Bitmap]

My employer is now requiring that I send copies of my children's birth certificates to an outside company so that I can prove they are my children.

When my children were born I was required to get them an SSN and give that number to the company as proof they were mine before I could add them to my insurance. Not being a fraud-minded person I thought that was strange but I did it. Now that is apparently not enough.

If my wife was covered on my insurance (she is not because she has her own) I would have to prove she is my wife. For this purpose a marriage certificate would not be sufficient. If I sent that document I would also have to send something official, like a car payment statement, that has both our names on it. Of course I could send a copy of a joint tax return to this outside company and they would accept that as proof. This method is also acceptable if I had a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend that I wanted to cover.

The reason for the new requirements? According to company information it is because of insurance fraud.

The company started covering "domestic partners" about 2 years ago and I suspect most of whatever fraud is occurring is in that area.

At the least I would like the following from the company:

1. The HR department of the company should handle this information, not an outside contractor. In the past our HR has not had any problems with information security that I am aware of. Since they already have all of my families info the new requirements would not be a big deal if I were dealing with them.

2. The company should let us (the employees) know how many cases of fraud they think they will uncover with this method.

3. How much money does the company think is involved in these cases? If the total was $10,000 then that amount saved spread over all our employees wouldn't buy a fast food lunch for everyone unless we found some really good coupons.

4. What kind of disciplinary action will be taken against the offending employees when they are uncovered? I would not be pleased to think that the company found people stealing from the company and did nothing to them.

On the subject of disciplinary action I would like the following: The offending employee is given a choice - either set up a repayment plan for the amount stolen from the company to be taken from the offenders paycheck each week and distributed to other employees to compensate for higher insurance costs or face immediate termination, civil lawsuit to get the stolen money back and have the information given to law enforcement for possible criminal action for insurance fraud.

At the very least I would like to see the offenders put at the top of the next layoff list. However, I suspect the company will not do anything to them.



5. I would like the company to announce how many cases of fraud they actually uncovered compared to the previously published number of expected cases.

6. I would like the company to announce how much money they saved/recovered compared to the previously published amount they expected.

7. I would like to know how many cases of fraud involve covering boyfriends and girlfriends compared to the number of cases involving married people covering children for their family members or friends or whatever they find.

I plan on agitating for these items with management and HR, but I don't expect anything to come from it.

Does anyone else work for a company that requires this sort of stuff and what kind of approach did they take to proving your family is your family?

[J Miller]

Should I be upset about new insurance requirements?

Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I sure as heck would be. Too much information to outside entities is not conducive to protecting ones privacy.
Personally, and this is just me, I'd tell the company insurance people to go pound sand. You've already given them more than enough information.

JMHO

Joe

[Bitmap]

Should I be upset about new insurance requirements?

Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I sure as heck would be. Too much information to outside entities is not conducive to protecting ones privacy.
Personally, and this is just me, I'd tell the company insurance people to go pound sand. You've already given them more than enough information.

JMHO

Joe

The company email on the subject says in part:

Please note that coverage will be dropped effective July 1, 2008 for any dependent who is found to be ineligible as a result of this verification process, as well for any dependent for whom no or incomplete documentation is provided.

They are not asking for the info. They are telling us we must give it to them or they won't insure our dependents. Sort of like giving your SSN is voluntary for getting a hunting license in TX. You don't have to give it but you won't get the license without it.

I have contacted the TX Dept. of Insurance and they basically said that if the company had third party insurance this would not be legal but since the company is self-insured they are outside the jurisdiction of the TDI. They do have to operate under the rules of the US Dept. of Labor so I'm going to investigate that direction. I did file a complaint with the TDI but I don't expect anything from it.

The other option is to find another job.

[handirifle]

My employer is now requiring that I send copies of my children's birth certificates to an outside company so that I can prove they are my children.

Soooo, if they are your STEP children they are not covered? Don't know where you work or if there's a union (I'm not a big fan of unions but they have their place for things like this) they should be demanding a insurance co change or change of policy.

I work for the Fed, and have used many different Ins Co's and NONE have ever asked for a birth cirtificate of my children or proof of marriage.

Beside why wouldn't a marriage certificate be suffecient? I wouldn't truse this compant one bit and I'd be letting the bosses know it too.

The employees MIGHT even have some legal recourse here as this seems to be bordering on privacy act issues IMHO.

[Bitmap]

My employer is now requiring that I send copies of my children's birth certificates to an outside company so that I can prove they are my children.

Soooo, if they are your STEP children they are not covered? Don't know where you work or if there's a union (I'm not a big fan of unions but they have their place for things like this) they should be demanding a insurance co change or change of policy.

I work for the Fed, and have used many different Ins Co's and NONE have ever asked for a birth cirtificate of my children or proof of marriage.

Beside why wouldn't a marriage certificate be suffecient? I wouldn't truse this compant one bit and I'd be letting the bosses know it too.

The employees MIGHT even have some legal recourse here as this seems to be bordering on privacy act issues IMHO.

No union. We are "professional".

Check out my reply right above you.

Especially this part:

I have contacted the TX Dept. of Insurance and they basically said that if the company had third party insurance this would not be legal but since the company is self-insured they are outside the jurisdiction of the TDI. They do have to operate under the rules of the US Dept. of Labor so I'm going to investigate that direction. I did file a complaint with the TDI but I don't expect anything from it.

You might be right about the privacy act issues. That will be next after the US Dept. of Labor.

I don't know why a marriage cert. wouldn't be sufficient. I don't know why the children's SSN's wouldn't be sufficient. Step children can be covered, but since I don't have any I haven't read into the details of proof.

And trust me I've let my manager know what I think of this.

[Blaine]

As the pressure to provide free services to Illegals increases, the pressure to squeeze the legal, working, tax payers gets greater and greater.

[Bitmap]

As the pressure to provide free services to Illegals increases, the pressure to squeeze the legal, working, tax payers gets greater and greater.

I've been thinking about applying for "illegal" status myself.

[jazman]

Well, just trying to understand their side of things (BTW, I wish I had someone paying for my insurance instead of me forking over $700 a month), a wedding cert is worthless in these days of divorce. A bill or tax return with both names solves this, as does the birth certs on the kids.
I suppose you could tell them to pound sand, if you want to look for a new job. Not saying it's right, but if they self insure as a company and have been burned by some idiots due to fraud no wonder they are gunshy and want all the documentation. Too bad you have to "pay" for others crooked actions, but as you state it it looks like you will have to do this to keep the insurance. Figure out what you want to do before the deadline, I think its bad news if you go for a time without coverage.

[Bitmap]

Well, just trying to understand their side of things (BTW, I wish I had someone paying for my insurance instead of me forking over $700 a month), a wedding cert is worthless in these days of divorce. A bill or tax return with both names solves this, as does the birth certs on the kids.
I suppose you could tell them to pound sand, if you want to look for a new job. Not saying it's right, but if they self insure as a company and have been burned by some idiots due to fraud no wonder they are gunshy and want all the documentation. Too bad you have to "pay" for others crooked actions, but as you state it it looks like you will have to do this to keep the insurance. Figure out what you want to do before the deadline, I think its bad news if you go for a time without coverage.

Like I said, I'd be interested in what kind of fraud numbers they think they are going to find and I'd like to know what they actually find. Since they are going to let anyone that lives with you be a dependent I guess a marriage cert really wouldn't matter.

So you wouldn't be worried about sending your ID info to an outside company?

[jazman]

Yes, I always worry about that...but I have to think they have thought about this and the outside company has security systems in place. I think this is your best line of question, concerns about privacy. Let them know your privacy concerns, and see if you can show all of the documentation to your Boss or higher, or HR management, and have them vouch for the fact the children are yours. They see/get their proof of no fraud, and you retain some privacy, might be worth a try. A lot of companies now are doing more background checks, drug testing and such, and if one wants to work there they have to put up with it. Like with all of this stuff, I think you need to determine if you really want to work there, and if so you have to play by their rules. The great thing is it's your choice. If it's a good job, well paying, good management, environment, it's worth it to put up with some BS. If not, probably time to get out anyway.

[Idahoser]

Am I the only one that thinks ANY requirement to buy the product or service of some company is none of the gov't's business?

Insurance is a wager that something bad will happen. If something bad fails to happen, you lose the bet. The bookie takes these long-odd wagers from the many on the principal that the payoffs will be few and far between, so he gets to keep most of your 'premiums'.

Now, it's alright with me if you want to make that wager. But when some entity requires it, something is badly out of kilter. It's the reason things cost so darn much, I have to compete with lottery "winners" for goods and services, so naturally inflation puts it out of my price range.

Something that most people seem to actively avoid understanding is that the sum total of premiums will always exceed the payouts, otherwise the insurer will declare bankruptcy, raise premiums, limit payouts, or otherwise avoid fulfilling their end of the contract. It IS a business, if they can't make money they won't stay in business.

[Rusty]

It's pretty plain. If you don't want your kids to be insured don't do it. things are getting tight all over. Companies are looking for way to save money just like everyone else. Since health care is a major cost they want to reduce it how ever they can. One of these ways is to stop providing insurance for people that don't deserve it.
My company did the same thing a little over a year ago.

Rusty <><

[AJMD429]

The problem began when government preferentially let insurance companies sell (inferior) product to employers to use as pre-tax 'pay' - so you feel forced to use that employer-provided insurance you're already dinged for (even before the visible ding on your pay stub). Kind of like the public schools.

[Wrangler John]

Hey guys the problem isn't domestic partners, it's illegal aliens. Here's what happened, a lot of Hispanic illegals, and legals too, "rent" their employer health care card to another person without coverage to cover a sick child(adults too). Most illegals are afraid to seek medical care lest they be found out. The person renting the card also provide a Social Security card as proof. So party A goes to the doctor with his kid as if he were party B. In California the "rent" used to be $50 to $75 per visit. They even get together at the local community center and advertise their services. To them the health benefit is theirs to sell or trade. So, suddenly your employer has bills coming in for twice as many kids as the employees have! My friend's company went through 3 insurance companies in 18 months, as they now can identify the trend, and refuse coverage.

That's why most clinics, hospitals and doctor's offices are requiring photo ID now.

[Idahoser]

No, if you offer it it will be abused. Pay your own way and I will too, and we'll get the best competition bringing prices within reach. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY that can work.

Goes for public school too.