Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_express_44
I used to manage the budgets for employee benefits at a large firm, and having an employee on the payroll that incurs a $100,000 a yr in drug/treatment cost will substantially effect the employer (or employee, depending on who pays) premiums for that benefit. This premium goes straight to the bottom line, i.e the premium charged is based on individual company averages, not the average of all people (across the state or country) who use that insurance agent.
|
Cherie--thanks for that informative post. But I've never understood the principle behind raising rates ONLY for the employer with the very sick employee. Why don't the insurance companies spread that cost around to other employers? It appears as if they're punishing a company--and/or its workers--because one of its employees got sick--and companies have no control over this (other than promoting employee wellness plans and incentives, which aren't going to prevent anyone from getting MS or most kinds of cancer).
This should be ILLEGAL, in my opinion. The idea of insurance is to spread the cost around, and not punish sick people for being sick.
But maybe there's some point I'm missing? What IS the principle or rationale that the insurance companies use? If it's merely to protect their bottom line, why can't they be made (by law) to protect their bottom line (which they must do, to stay in business) by spreading the costs to their other clients as well, instead of dumping all the burden on one employer and its employees?
We have GOT to have health-care reform in this country. The current system is SO stupid.
Nancy T.