Odds of Winning in Independent Health Plan Review 50-50

March 19, 2002 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - In the 42 states with external review programs in place for the resolution of health plan disputes, decisions are made in favor of the consumers about half the time.

That’s the conclusion of a new study prepared for the Kaiser Family Foundation by researchers at Georgetown University’s Institute for Health Care Research and Policy. The research found that 45% of consumer appeals got fully overturned while 49% are fully upheld.

The review panels partly overturn plan coverage rulings an average 6% of the time, the study said.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

The research also showed that despite external review programs being present in most states, they have generally been little used with only about 4,000 documented annual appeals.

Producing the largest number of claims was New York, which had 902 cases between July 1999 and June 2000, out of the 8.4 million residents estimated to be covered by the state law.

Researchers pointed out that some state programs might have effectively limited the number of consumer appeals through complex administrative procedures.

They said some of the programs might require:

  • that internal appeals to a health plan be exhausted before turning to the state,
  • filing fees, and
  • rules that set a minimum dollar amount that must be in dispute before an appeal can be filed
     

Pending Federal Legislation

The report also discusses pending federal legislation that may impact states’ external review programs.

Researchers said both the US House and Senate have passed bills that would establish a federal right to independent external review of health plan decisions for all privately insured individuals, including those in self-insured employer plans, who are now excluded from state programs.

However, the bills take different approaches to state laws.

The Senate bill would establish a federal floor for external review protections, leaving in place features of state programs that are more protective of consumers, but overriding those that are less protective, according to the study

The House bill, by contrast, would preempt all state external review programs, as well as state requirements for internal appeals, replacing them with a single federal standard. 
 
In addition to the pending federal legislation, a case currently under consideration by the US Supreme Court, Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v  Debra C Moran, et al (see Supremes To Weigh In On HMO Review ) could also affect the future of state-run external review programs if the court rules that their decisions cannot
be binding on health plans that offer coverage purchased by employers.
 

Copies of study are available at the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site.


 

Employees Concerned About Retirement Security

March 18, 2002 (PLANSPONSOR.com)-The Enron fiasco has caused more employees to consider the security of their 401(k) and retirement plans, a new survey finds.

According to a new survey from Insight Express, an online market research firm, 45% of employees are more concerned about the security of their plans since hearing about Enron.
 
Meanwhile, 33% would consider purchasing some kind of retirement insurance to protect their investments from situations similar to the Enron case.  At the same time, 4 out of 10 employees said they would welcome reassurance from their employer about the security of their plans.

However, the survey also found that that only 1% of employees trust employers most to provide sound financial guidance.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Instead, most employees have high expectations of plan providers and financial advisors who they trust to take the appropriate steps to make them feel secure about their investments.

In fact, the survey found that employees would like 401K/retirement funds providers to:

  • be held responsible for their investment recommendations- 67%
  • quickly communicate potential issues and risks regarding investments- 59%
  • report suspicious practices of companies to the government- 59%
  • conduct due diligence on their recommendations- 43%
  • have no involvement in the investment opportunities they recommend- 31%

 

«

Thank you so much for your interest in our content. Please register to access this complimentary archived content. By registering, you will receive our newsletter which can be opted out of at any time.

 

 

Already Registered? Click here to confirm.