Monday, December 16, 2013

Proceeding apace... [UPDATED]

So you may have seen this story floating around the 'net:

"[A] House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ... has found that Obamacare Navigators have been giving Americans misinformation and, in some cases, actively encouraging enrollees to commit fraud in order to raise their subsidies."

Of course, this is only a surprise to the folks in Capital City; we've been pointing this out for quite some time.

The report also notes that "there is no way for Americans to find out whether their Navigators are properly certified."

Again, something we've covered for a while. But then, we're just a bunch of greedy, evil insurance agents (who have to be trained, licensed and our backgrounds checked), so what do we know?

My favorite, though, is the headline: "Ill-Trained Obamacare Navigators Encouraging Fraud, Jeopardizing Private Info"

I would argue that they are most certainly not "ill-trained:" they are doing exactly what they've been trained to do.

More: Over the past few days, phone calls from clients, would-be clients and colleagues have really picked up. There is just so much confusion and misinformation (and not just from the Navigators, but so much of the Lame Stream Media): no, you don't have to keep your insurance for a year if you renew early; and no, you don't have to rely solely on the site (unless you qualify for, and wish to take advantage of, a subsidy).

But it seems that every day a new slew of "suggestions" from our Betters in Capital City seem to indicate they they really have no idea what they're doing, or a cogent strategy for getting it done.

Here's an example: Ms Shecantbeserious is urging carriers to allow folks who successfully navigate [ed: I see what you did there] the site and signed up for a plan to be "deemed" to be covered, even if the carrier has received no premiums. This is not new: there's always been a grace period for coverage, and as long as the premiums are paid within that time frame, the plan is in effect. The real issue is the 90 day window, but they don't address that.

Which still leaves two major problems: first, that carriers are being asked to treat non-par claims as par, and to pay for meds that aren't actually covered.

Anyone else see a slight problem there?
blog comments powered by Disqus