he patient didn't have to pay, but it's still a useful lesson for others, an economist says.
Helen Dorroh White thought she was doing the right thing when she called a health insurance company to question a nearly $1-million medical bill. Instead, she said, no one seemed to care.
White, a Glendale lawyer, was closing the financial affairs for a deceased client when she came across the insurance statement. It showed a $962,120 bill for her client, Dusanka Mlinarevich, who spent four days at Glendale Adventist Medical Center after suffering minor injuries in a fall at her Burbank home last year.
That struck White as odd, she said, because the hospital had told her the bill was $48,106.
Concerned about the discrepancy, White called the health insurance company, Long Beach-based SCAN Health Plan.
"My first question was, 'Is this some kind of typo or some mistake?' " said White, 73. A customer service representative paid little heed, White said, and insisted that the amount was correct.
"She didn't even bat an eye," White said.
Fearing fraud, White wrote a letter to the U.S. attorney's office and contacted The Times.
After inquiries from a reporter, SCAN's vice president of marketing, Sherry Stanislaw, said the company found a computer glitch that was producing erroneous claim reports for customers.
Actual billings and payments were not affected, Stanislaw said. She confirmed that Glendale Adventist's bill was for $48,106 and said that SCAN paid a negotiated rate of $4,350 and that Mlinarevich, who died in August at age 78, was assessed a $150 co-payment.
Because patients are responsible only for co-payments and deductibles, few consumers ever take a close look at their medical bills, said Devon Herrick, a healthcare economist and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
To help keep rising healthcare costs in check, more consumers should do what White did, Herrick said. "Most insurance companies will agree that they'd want their enrollees to scrutinize their bills."
SCAN said the computer glitch was being investigated. Stanislaw conceded that her customer representative should have heeded White's concerns and contacted a supervisor. The company is sending White a new claim statement, she said.
White wasn't completely pleased.
"It is easy to blame the computer. Well, who programs the computers?" she asked. "The last I checked, computers didn't program themselves."
By Daniel Yi, Times Staff Writer
Thursday, June 28, 2007
A $962,120 medical bill error
Clarian Health Making Changes to Insurance Plans
Clarian Health is announcing changes to employee medical insurance plans in order to promote healthier lifestyles. Beginning in 2008, all employees wishing to enroll in Clarian-sponsored plans will have to report all potential health risks, including whether they use tobacco. A health risk charge of $5 per paycheck will be assessed to employees who have used tobacco within six months of their health risk assessment completion date. Beginning in 2009, employees will also have to participate in a complete health screening.
saw the introduction of Clarian Health’s mission strategy: A Call to Change. Through billboards, television and radio commercials, as well as community events and health fairs, Clarian has issued a call to all citizens of Indiana to take control and improve their health. Not only did Clarian issue a call, but the organization and its employees are acting on it.
There is no shortage of news stories or political speeches about the rising costs of health care, how much money and productivity companies lose due to employees who are sick and cannot work, or how unhealthy lifestyle habits such as smoking are affecting Hoosiers and resulting in higher hospital utilization.
Year after year, headlines remind us that Indiana has had the dubious distinction of being one of the most unhealthy states in America. However, there has been no significant improvement in this status and a comprehensive solution is nowhere in sight.
As Indiana’s health care leader, Clarian has been a leader in exploring ways to better manage and reduce the cost of health care. Like other organizations, Clarian is looking for ways to help improve the health status of its employees. Focusing on health prevention and wellness, Clarian is actively working to improve its employees’ health by incenting and empowering them to lead healthier lifestyles.
Beginning in 2009, all Clarian Health employees who elect to participate in the organization’s medical insurance plans must complete a health screening (body mass index, LDL cholesterol, glucose, blood pressure) and Health Risk Appraisal (HRA).
In 2008, the HRA is necessary for enrollment in company-sponsored plans with employees self-reporting their health risk results. One self-reported health risk will be a statement of tobacco use or non-use status.
Also new in 2008 will be a health risk charge of $5 per paycheck for medical plan participants who have used tobacco within six months of their HRA completion date. This is an effort within our health plan changes to provide an incentive for employees to adopt healthier lifestyle habits.
“Any employee currently enrolled in medical coverage or electing coverage during open enrollment will need to complete the HRA to obtain coverage under the medical plan as of January 1, 2008,” said Steve Wantz, senior vice president of Administration and Human Resources. “Clarian has carefully weighed the pros and cons as well as conducted research surrounding this approach, including a timed series of focus groups with Clarian employees,” added Wantz.
“Clarian Human Resources and associates from Clarian’s Wellness staff have structured this program based on measurements and guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute,” stated Brian O’Connor, director of Benefits for Clarian.
Clarian is notifying employees of the medical plan well in advance to ensure they “know their numbers” and allow employees time to address any personal areas of risk with their doctors before the screening and before the 2009 benefit changes go into effect.
Clarian will offer free screenings for blood pressure and BMI during the summer and fall of 2007 for employees interested in obtaining these health measurements. The organization will offer a variety of resources and support, as well as education about health risks, to employees who “know their numbers,” and who want to make positive change toward improving their health and lessening their health insurance premium costs.
“The information provided in the HRA will not be used to exclude anyone from our medical insurance plans,” said O’Connor. “We hope that employees learn about one or more health risks they may not have been aware of, they will take steps to protect their health and, by addressing those risks, no longer fall into a high-risk category for some or even all of the risks identified by the time the 2009 plan changes take effect.”
Wantz added, “This is really part of our Call to Change mission communications strategy. This time, we are asking employees to make a personal call to change.”
Employees who have a health risk they would like to address or want help quitting tobacco can find help through a variety of resources at Clarian.
A reasonable alternative will be in place for those employees for whom it is unreasonably difficult or medically inadvisable to satisfy the standard for any particular health risk due to a medical condition.
“We are as committed to the health and well-being of our employees as we are to that of our patients,” stated Wantz. “As both a premier health care provider and employer, Clarian is in a unique position to provide the necessary resources and support to our employees seeking to improve their own health and make that personal change.”
Source: Clarian Health
Over USD 6Mn paid to insured retirees in Morocco in 2007
The hospitalization expenses paid off by the national fund of insurance "Caisse Nationale des Organismes de Prévoyance Sociale" (French acronym CNOPS) to insured retirees and their claimants, reached some USD 6Mn for the year 2007, revealed, here Wednesday, Moroccan Employment Minister, Mustapha Mansouri.
Speaking at the House of Representatives' (lower house) question time, the minister noted that the Mandatory Health Insurance (AMO) enabled some 74,929 new insured to benefit from health coverage.
The minister said services concern preventive and medical care.
The AMO guarantees risk insurance and fees of medical services following sickness, accident, delivery or physical rehabilitation to the insured and his family members, with the exception of cosmetic surgery.
With the AMO and the Medical Assistance Regime (RAMED), which is destined to the economically destitute population, the overall number of the population benefiting from medical insurance in Morocco will reach 50%.
by:www.map.ma
Two Models of Health Care Rationing
Sick and Sicker
Everyone knows that Canadians live longer and have lower infant mortality rates than Americans. In Sicko, Michael Moore suggests that a Canadian-style medical system would solve this problem. Surprisingly, the evidence indicates that it would not.
A cross-border team of 17 researchers (including high-profile supporters of the Canadian system) examined a variety of medical problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic illness and surgical procedures. With the single exception of end-stage kidney disease, where Canadian patients fared better, they found no consistent difference in patient outcomes between the two nations.1 As I have argued elsewhere, the United States has the worst health statistics in the industrialized world because it is the most unequal society in the industrialized world.2
Although Canada's medical system does not produce generally better patient outcomes, it is more equitable and far more economical. In 2003, the average American spent almost twice as much for medical care as the average Canadian. Exorbitant medical bills are a constant worry and a major cause of personal bankruptcy. Profit-taking is responsible for the high cost of American medicine. However, the Canadian system is also subject to market forces.
Contrary to popular belief, Canada does not have a single-payer medical system. Government pays about 70 percent of medical costs, including most hospital and physician care. Individuals and private insurance companies pay the remaining 30 percent for prescription drugs, dental and vision care, ambulance, medical devices, home care and other services.
To contain costs, both the United States and Canada ration medical care, but they do this in different ways. In the U.S., more than 47 million people have no medical insurance at all. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 people die every year as a result. In Canada, lack of access is more equitably spread across the population in the form of long waits for assessment and treatment. We don't know how many Canadians die while waiting for treatment, because no one is counting the bodies.3 The Canadian model of rationing is sick, and the American model is sicker because it unfairly discriminates against those who cannot pay. Neither is good enough. Medical care is a human right and should not be rationed at all.
Disgust with the American medical system has built support for HR 676--The United States National Health Insurance Act--a single-payer system where medical care would be publicly financed and privately delivered. Winning HR 676 would be a tremendous victory. However, the Canadian experience shows that private delivery of medical care opens the door to parasitical profit-taking.
The Canadian experience
Until the 1960's the American and Canadian medical systems were nearly identical. Those with the highest incomes obtained the lion's share of medical services even though those with the lowest incomes experienced the most illness. The logical solution was a government-run system to provide medical care for all, but doctors and private insurers rejected what they called "state medicine and socialism."
During the upturn of the 1960s, the pressure grew for universal health care. To contain demand, the federal government launched a Royal Commission to "study" the problem. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) made its preference clear.
"We favor a system of public health care that will be universal in application and comprehensive in coverage. We favor a system that will present no economic barrier between the service and those who need it. We are opposed to any provision which will require some people to submit themselves to a means test in order to obtain service. We look to a system of health care that will be regarded as a public service and not as an insurance mechanism."4
The public-service model, where government is both payer and provider, was rejected. Instead, the Medical Care Insurance Act of 1966 established a publicly-financed system that would be administered and delivered by the private sector, "free of government control or domination."
The province of Quebec took a different route. Pressured by workers' demands that culminated in the 1972 General Strike, Quebec incorporated medical services into a broad social benefits system, paid for and provided by the provincial government. The Quebec working class is rarely credited for producing the most comprehensive medical system in North America.
The assault on Canadian medicare
The ink was barely dry on the Medical Care Insurance Act before the federal government began cutting funds for health and social services. The 1974 recession and the recessions of the early 1980s and the early 1990s were followed by deeper cuts. As the cost of medicare was downloaded from the federal government to the provinces, the principle of equal access was eroded.
Private corporations rushed into the breach created by under-funding. The more medical services were removed from the public realm, the more individuals had to pay out of pocket, purchase insurance to cover the gap or go without.
To reassure nervous Canadians that medicare was safe, the Canada Health Act of 1984 guaranteed universal and equal access to medical services, but provided no funds to make this possible. Behind the scenes, government was committed to "growing" the private medical industry.
In 1994, the Ontario government concluded, "To have the effective launching pad it needs, the health industries sector must expand its share of its own home market. Steps must be taken to ensure that, as in other countries, the domestic market supports the development of globally competitive companies." One of these steps was to eliminate regulations mandating a minimum level of daily care for Ontario nursing-home residents.
In 1997, the federal government declared "Promoting Canadian companies as global health-keepers is the main objective driving the strategies and plans of the government for the medical devices, pharmaceutical and health-services sector."5 And in 2004, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that, "The Canada Health Act [does] not promise that any Canadian will receive funding for all medically required treatment."
Behind the mask of "health-care reform" and "restructuring," the Canadian medical system has been handed, piece-by-piece, to private industry in a manner similar to the dismantling of Britain's National Health Service6 --publicly-provided health care is under-funded to the point of crisis, then denigrated for its inadequacies. The private sector is proclaimed the only possible savior, and opponents are ridiculed as old-fashioned and sentimental. When the market fails to deliver, we are told we must adapt to "the new reality." The strongest opposition to this process has come from organized health-care workers.
Canadian hospitals, which by law must be non-profit institutions, became a battleground as unionized workers resisted wage cuts and contracting-out of housekeeping, information systems, food preparation, laboratory and other services to private, non-union companies. In 1981, Ontario hospital workers launched a province-wide strike, defying back-to-work legislation and the jailing of union leaders. Unwilling to broaden its challenge to neoliberal social policy, the union caved and the strike was defeated. Most small, local hospitals were closed. Those that remained open were merged into giant conglomerates managed by business consultants.
Privatization has decimated services. Families stagger under the burden of sick, injured and frail relatives who were previously cared for in hospital, rehabilitation and chronic-care facilities. In-home nursing care is scarce or pricey.
Tens of thousands of hospital nursing jobs have been eliminated at the same time that average hospital stays have been cut, so that fewer nurses care for much sicker patients. Hospital food lacks nutrition and infectious diseases plague hospitals that are no longer clean.7
As hospital out-patient clinics closed, patients were sent to family doctors (GPs) for follow-up. The downloading of medical services has created a crisis at the primary-care level. By 1998, 62 percent of Canadian physicians reported that their workload was too heavy, and more than half said that their family and personal life were suffering. By 2000, only 39 percent of Ontario GPs were accepting new patients. By 2006, fewer than 10 percent were accepting new patients. People typically wait months to see a specialist and more months for treatment. Patients grow sicker and die while they wait.
Quebec's model health-care system has been damaged severely by funding cuts. In 2005, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that lack of timely access to treatment in Quebec was serious enough that the province could no longer prohibit private funding for medically necessary services. Similar legal challenges are expected in the other provinces.
Unless the public system is resuscitated with a major transfusion of funds, it's only a matter of time before private hospitals begin servicing those who can pay to go to the front of the line. Ironically, while Americans long for a Canadian-style medical system, that system is disintegrating under the pressure of market forces.
Why ration medicine?
The capitalist class will pay anything to defend and extend its power. No ceiling has been set on spending to win the war for Middle-East oil. In contrast, there is fierce resistance to funding any services for workers beyond the minimum required to keep them productive. As the competition for capital increases, most governments are reducing their investment in health, education and social services --robbing the public sector to boost the profitability of the private sector. No nation and no medical system are immune to the relentless drive for profit.
The American medical system will be reformed. Ordinary people want medical services. Business complains that the cost of medical benefits is hurting their profits and global competitiveness; they want to transfer these costs to the public sector. Because Americans pay almost 90 percent more per-capita on medical care than Canadians do, rationalizing the medical system would offer fantastic cost savings. The real question is how it will be reformed.
The key demand is for affordable medical care. With almost 60 percent of the American workforce making less than $15 an hour, affordable care would have to be free. That shouldn't be a problem. A nation that can find the money to pay for war can find the money to pay for universal health care --in theory.
In practice, capitalism prioritizes cost-efficiency over human need by "industrializing" social services. The work of medicine is dissected into components that are individually priced and parceled out. The profitable parts are handed to the private sector and the unprofitable portions remain in the public realm or are abandoned altogether. While applying industrial methods to medicine is cost-effective from a business point of view, it fragments health care. Planning health services to meet population needs and integrating prevention and treatment, hospital and community care become impossible.
Winning HR 676 would be a definite step in the right direction. However, we need to go further. Eliminating profit from the medical system requires public financing and public delivery of services (socialized medicine). More than that, all health and social services must be provided as a human right --fully funded, fully integrated and with no rationing. If capitalism cannot meet these basic needs, then we need to construct a socialist society that can.
Dr. Susan Rosenthal has been practicing medicine for more than 30 years and has written many articles on the relationship between health and human relationships. She is also the author of Striking Flint: Genora (Johnson) Dollinger Remembers the 1936-1937 General Motors Sit-Down Strike (1996) and Market Madness and Mental Illness: The Crisis in Mental Health Care (1999) and Power and Powerlessness. She is a member of the National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981. She can be reached through her website: www.powerandpowerlessness.typepad.comBy Dr. SUSAN ROSENTHAL, M.D.
UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company Launches SecurePack for Small Businesses
Many small business owners want to offer life and disability insurance as part of a comprehensive benefits plan, but believe they cannot afford it. UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company's SecurePack, specifically designed for small businesses, offers life insurance, disability insurance and employee assistance program (EAP) in an affordable and convenient benefit package.
SecurePack is available to small businesses with 2-99 employees. Five packages are available. Each includes a different level of:
- Group Term Life Insurance, delivering a timely benefit payment for the family if an employee passes away. - Accidental Death and Dismemberment, paying an additional benefit if an employee dies or faces a covered loss - like the loss of a limb - in an accident. - Dependent Life Insurance, paying a benefit to the employee if a spouse or child passes away. - Disability Insurance, providing temporary income to employees if they cannot work because of an illness or injury. This protection includes pregnancy.
"SecurePack offers solutions that can help small employers attract and retain great employees. There are no medical questionnaires and no mid-year rate changes," said Nicholas L. Brecker, president of UniCare's Life and Disability business. "SecurePack makes it easier for small businesses to provide these valued benefits to their employees."
Many small businesses owners also recognize that EAP can be helpful to their employees. SecurePack includes the InTouch, an EAP that offers:
- Ongoing support including toll-free, 24/7 telephone counseling, and referrals to financial and legal resources. - Convenient resources including access to child care and elder care databases, as well as additional Web site resources including on-line will preparation. - Face-to-face counseling including three sessions per year for employees with a disability and six sessions per year for beneficiaries dealing with the loss of a loved one - at no cost to them. - Human resources support is also available to help small groups through difficult situations, like alcoholism in the workplace. Employees don't have to fill out medical questionnaires as long as they sign up during the enrollment period.
"We are committed to providing small businesses with affordable, integrated and comprehensive benefits," said Jimmy Lee, vice-president for individual and small group business at UniCare. "When combined with medical insurance, SecurePack is one way small business owners can help deliver greater financial and health security for their employees."
Life and disability products are underwritten by UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company. For more information on UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company's SecurePack visit www.unicare.com.
UniCare benefits products are offered in Illinois and Indiana by UniCare Health Insurance Company of the Midwest, in Texas by UniCare Health Insurance Company of Texas and in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company. UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation, UniCare Health Insurance Company of Texas, a Texas corporation, and UniCare Health Insurance Company of the Midwest, an Illinois corporation, are separately formed and capitalized subsidiaries of WellPoint, Inc., an Indiana corporation. For self-funded plans UniCare acts as a claim processor and does not insure benefits under the plan.
Media Contact: Jerry Slowey Tony Felts (805) 557-6754 317-287-6036 jerry.slowey@wellpoint.com tony.felts@anthem.com
SOURCE UniCare
When Minority Patients Have Insurance And A Medical Home, Their Health Care Improves
Providing minority patients a "medical home" in which they have a regular doctor or health professional who oversees and coordinates their care would help eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities and promote more health care equity, says a new report from The Commonwealth Fund. The report, based on a 2006 survey of more than 2,830 adults, shows that linking minority patients with a health care setting that offers timely, well-organized care where they can routinely seek physicians and medical advice can help them better manage chronic conditions and obtain critical preventive care services.
According to the report, Closing the Divide: How Medical Homes Promote Equity in Health Care, in 2006 nearly one-half of Hispanics and more than one of four African Americans were uninsured at some point during the year. In contrast, 21 percent of whites and 18 percent of Asian Americans lacked coverage. In addition to being the groups most likely to go without health insurance, African Americans and Hispanics are least likely to have a regular doctor or source of care. While health insurance coverage is an important determinant of whether people can obtain essential care, the authors say insurance alone cannot eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health.
"Insurance coverage helps people gain access to health care, but the next thing you have to ask is 'access to what?'" says lead co-author Anne Beal, M.D., senior program officer at the Commonwealth Fund. "We found many disparities in care; however, disparities are not immutable. This survey shows if you can provide both insurance and access to a true medical home, racial and ethnic differences in getting needed medical care are often eliminated," she adds.
According to the report, patients have a medical home when they:
* Have a regular provider or place of care
* Report no difficulty contacting a provider by phone
* Report no difficulty getting advice or medical care when needed on weekends or evenings
* Always or often find office visits well-organized and efficiently run
Although there are many places that are already functioning as models of such care, what most limited a health setting from being designated a medical home in this survey was the ability to dispense medical advice or care after hours or on weekends, according to the report. Only two-thirds of adults who have a regular provider or source of care report that it is easy to get care or medical advice after hours. Among all groups surveyed, Hispanics have the hardest time seeking care or advice after hours, and they are least likely to have a medical home.
The survey shows that, when they have a medical home, the vast majority of adults of all races say they can always get the care they need when they need it. Nearly three-quarters of adults with a medical home report getting the care they need compared with only 52 percent of those with a regular provider that is not a medical home and 38 percent of adults without any regular source of provider.
Key survey findings on the role of a medical home in eliminating health care disparities:
* Racial/Ethnic Disparities Are Still Common.
* African Americans and Hispanics are less likely to be insured, and less likely to have a regular doctor or source of care.
* Hispanics are least likely to have a medical home; only 15 percent of Hispanics report having a medical home compared with 28 percent of whites, 34 percent of African Americans and 26 percent of Asian Americans.
Preventive Care Is More Routine.
* Minority adults with a medical home experienced no disparities in receiving preventive care reminders, which significantly improve rates of routine screening for conditions such as heart disease and cancer. For example, eight of 10 adults who received a preventive reminder had their cholesterol checked in the past five years compared with half of adults who did not get a reminder.
* Two-thirds (65%) of adults who have a medical home receive preventive reminders, according to the survey.
Chronic Care is Better Managed.
* Adults with a medical home are better prepared to manage chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypertension. Only 23 percent of adults with a medical home report their doctor or doctor's office did not give them a plan to manage their care at home compared with 65 percent who have no regular source of care.
* Forty-two percent of hypertensive adults with a medical home report that they check their blood pressure and it is well controlled compared with 25 percent of those without a medical home.
Having Health Insurance Matters.
* More than half of insured adults received a reminder from a doctor's office to schedule preventive visits compared with only 36 percent of uninsured adults; when African American and Hispanic patients are insured, they are just as likely as white adults to receive reminders to schedule needed preventive care.
Community Health Centers and Other Public Clinics Are Important Providers of Care to Vulnerable Patients.
* Although they care for a large proportion of uninsured, low-income, and minority adults, patients report that community health centers (CHCs) or other public clinics are less likely to have all four characteristics that comprise what the survey defined as a "medical home." Twenty-one percent of CHCs or public clinics have all four indicators of a medical home, compared with 32 percent of private doctors' offices.
* The main reason CHCs and other public clinics do not function as medical homes is because patients say they have more difficulty getting medical advice or care in the evenings or weekends. Since these safety net providers play a critical role in the care of vulnerable patients, the authors say it is important to find ways to support CHCs and public clinics becoming medical homes.
Promoting standards for the medical home through public reporting of performance and rewarding providers that meet these performance benchmarks would go a long way toward improving the way care is delivered and eliminating disparities, say Commonwealth Fund authors.
"We know the medical home is a promising model of care for narrowing health care disparities and providing patients with much higher quality care in terms of prevention and chronic disease management," says Fund Executive Vice President Stephen C. Schoenbaum, M.D. "Adopting policies to encourage practitioners to embrace this model would improve care for everyone, particularly those in safety net settings," he adds.
Methodology
The survey was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from May 30 through October 19, 2006. The survey consisted of 25-minute telephone interviews in English or Spanish among a random, nationally representative sample of 3,535 adults at least 18 years of age living in the continental United States. The report restricts the analysis to the 2,837 respondents ages 18-64. The sample was designed to target African American, Hispanic, and Asian households and it classifies adults by insurance status and annual income. The survey has an overall margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation working toward a high performance health system.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Commonwealth Fund.
Finding Credible Mini-Medical Insurance Plans
Limited medical insurance plans are not created equal. Many plans in the market are priced cheaply but offer few real benefits which can cause frustration for both employees and providers. But, with a few helpful tips, employers can find credible plans at reasonable costs. Orlando, FL (PRWEB) June 28, 2007 -- Its no secret that double-digit healthcare premium increases over the last several years have forced many employers to reduce or cancel healthcare benefits altogether. A number of insurance carriers have responded by offering limited medical plans for groups, sometimes referred to as mini-med plans or limited benefits insurance. In order to attract greater employee participation, some plans are designed based on how much the employer is willing to contribute and are offered for as little as $20 per month. But at the same time, such low cost plans provide very little real coverage and can create more confusion and frustration for providers and consumers than the benefits are worth. But, there are credible limited medical plans available in the market place, and savvy employers can learn the differences and pick plans that provide valuable benefits at reasonable costs. So, how can employers who can't afford major medical group plans find reasonably priced limited medical insurance plans? First, review the benefit plan summary to check for minimum coverage amounts for:
About AgelessCare: |
