Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ms. Toad

(38,434 posts)
5. Nice concept, but there are some pretty significant logistical issues
Fri May 19, 2017, 08:35 AM
May 2017

Most plans are specific to the local providers. They don't provide coverage (other than emergency) outside of the geographical area in which they have negotiated contracts. Or - at best - they provide out-of-network rates. For out-of-network rates, there is typically no negotiated discount - but insurance is capped at the UCR for that service. The insured picks up the rest of the bill.

For example, a typical lab bill for me: $120, discounted to $12 for the insurer, I pay 15% of that - $1.80 so the insurer pays $10.20, the lab eats the $108 discount.

Out of network, I would typically have a higher copay (perhaps 25%), and there is no discount, but the insurer pays as if there were. So in that scenario, the insurer pays $9 (75% of the discounted rate), I pay $111, because the provider is not under contract to accept the discounted rate.

(Labwork is the most heavily discounted - at 80-95%, but most insurance discounts are significant. If out of network costs are covered at all, you typically lose the benefit of whatever discount there is.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So would these insurers exit the federal market too? greymattermom May 2017 #1
I think that is her point. Demsrule86 May 2017 #10
D*mn right, I'll have what she has. That's all I've ever wanted was what congress has. eom a kennedy May 2017 #2
Doesn't this amount to allowing insurance companies House of Roberts May 2017 #3
My first thought too SHRED May 2017 #4
No...there are many states like Georgia that did not extend Medicare and did not Demsrule86 May 2017 #9
All states have Federal Employee Program plans for those federal employees. cbdo2007 May 2017 #11
So a Fed employee in Alabama House of Roberts May 2017 #12
Every federal district has different insurers. Scruffy1 May 2017 #18
In Alabama, BC/BS is about it. House of Roberts May 2017 #19
The "across state lines" thing is a bogus RW talking point... Wounded Bear May 2017 #20
Nice concept, but there are some pretty significant logistical issues Ms. Toad May 2017 #5
Medicare buy-in would be better Trekologer May 2017 #6
I disagree ...this is very clever and puts it on Congress to explain why they get health care and Demsrule86 May 2017 #8
Agree! Another hole for GOPers to fall in and crawl out of! dae May 2017 #14
The more holes the better...one hopes for at least a broken leg... Demsrule86 May 2017 #23
That is clever. Demsrule86 May 2017 #7
Very good, but once again Access does NOT equate to coverage aeromanKC May 2017 #13
Post win! LittleGirl May 2017 #17
Presumably there are subsidies in the plan...nt Wounded Bear May 2017 #21
At what cost? SHRED May 2017 #15
Sounds good to me! SunSeeker May 2017 #16
And what does that cost when the individual is paying? Lee-Lee May 2017 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Claire introduces bill to...»Reply #5