Does your company VERIFY your dependent's eligibility for coverage?

Found that other companies, and universities, too, are doing this... so I guess it is more common than I thought. Seton Hall did it last year, and their list of required documentation is similar:

http://www.shu.edu/news/article/153700

Interesting, Seton Hall had an amnesty period during which ineligible dependents could be removed before the audit, with no repercussions. I don't think that option is available for anybody at my company that was skirting the system... not that I think the option SHOULD be available.
 
Anyone who is unhappy with the level of healthcare coverage their employer provides and how it is being administered is free to decline the covrage, and purchase individual health insurance :) .
 
A few years ago I had to send in spouse's birth certificate and marriage certificate. Now the annual drill is just to verify continuing eligibility online.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Would you stay at a company that asked for this kind of documentation?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Its becoming more and more common. If anything, you have to prove eligibility during enrollment and continued proof of eligibility for dependents other than the spouse on a recurring basis.

Insuring ineligible dependents is FRAUD. That's STEALING from the company. Why would you fault a company for keeping their losses due to fraud to a minimum?

On the flip side, there are some situations that will come down in a very expensive fashion on non-custodial parents. When the court requires the non-primary custodial parent to maintain health insurance on a child (as a result of divorce/paternity proceedings), your insurance company may not consider a non-custodial child your dependent....

The court order is the parent's problem, not the parent's insurance company's problem..
 
Doggtyred said:
Absolutely. Its becoming more and more common. If anything, you have to prove eligibility during enrollment and continued proof of eligibility for dependents other than the spouse on a recurring basis.

Insuring ineligible dependents is FRAUD. That's STEALING from the company. Why would you fault a company for keeping their losses due to fraud to a minimum?

On the flip side, there are some situations that will come down in a very expensive fashion on non-custodial parents. When the court requires the non-primary custodial parent to maintain health insurance on a child (as a result of divorce/paternity proceedings), your insurance company may not consider a non-custodial child your dependent....

The court order is the parent's problem, not the parent's insurance company's problem..
Click to expand...

I can't speak for any company but the one I work for.
When a court order is received, HR automatically puts the dependent on the coverage and then notifies the employee of their new premium.
From what I have learned from our HR, if they receive the order, the company could be held in contempt for NOT following through with it.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Agreed. I guess being an honest person, it feels a little "police state like". But, I've learned from the comments on this thread that the practice (of fraud, that is) seems to be widespread enough to warrant such an audit. If it saves the company that much money, and keeps the pool clean, I'll gladly participate.
Click to expand...

Troy: You will not be offended when I tell you that your standards of honor, ethics and character are, shall we say, a little bit above the norm.

Trapper John said:
So, in other words, it takes the threat of regulation to stimulate responsible corporate governance...
Click to expand...

Nope, not what I intended to say at all, nor was it in fact what I wrote.

Nice try, though! :wink2:

markb5900 said:
I can't speak for any company but the one I work for.
When a court order is received, HR automatically puts the dependent on the coverage and then notifies the employee of their new premium.
From what I have learned from our HR, if they receive the order, the company could be held in contempt for NOT following through with it.
Click to expand...

Bad call, unless the company is a party to the proceeding.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Nope. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we get a memo later telling us the outcome of the audit.
Click to expand...

I would think they would make the results as well as the actions upon those results well known, both as an exemplar to the employees and to show in investor relations that they are proactive in protecting profits.
 
Henning said:
I would think they would make the results as well as the actions upon those results well known, both as an exemplar to the employees and to show in investor relations that they are proactive in protecting profits.
Click to expand...

Private company... though I've got suspicions they may be trying to position themselves for public acquisition.
 
The Comm Center I work for offers health coverage for domestic partners. All the insurance company needed was a letter from my employer and a copy of the school transcripts for my boyfriends son.

I can forsee in the next year or two having to come up with all kinds of documents the OP listed. Problem is, we have no joint accounts, no joint bills, the house is paid for, my mail goes to one of my two PO Boxes and his mail goes to his company. ~sigh~
 
DeeG said:
The Comm Center I work for offers health coverage for domestic partners. All the insurance company needed was a letter from my employer and a copy of the school transcripts for my boyfriends son.

I can forsee in the next year or two having to come up with all kinds of documents the OP listed. Problem is, we have no joint accounts, no joint bills, the house is paid for, my mail goes to one of my two PO Boxes and his mail goes to his company. ~sigh~
Click to expand...

Time to open a joint savings account and drop $20 into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top