<p>Actually, historically, I could never afford a “family” plan for myself and my kids, because the cost of a premium for me + 2 kids was well over the cost for buying 3 separate policies. It wasn’t even close – getting family coverage would have doubled our rates. </p>
<p>So it may very well be that the ACA premium calculation will reduce rates for smaller families. It may also benefit families where there is a substantial age difference between the spouses- for example, a 25-year-old married to a 40-year-old.</p>
<p>I don’t know about that, calmom. It stands to reason that if you were to buy separate policies for the average sized family of two adults and two kids, that would be way more than a family policy. Obviously, I don’t know your specific situation, but I can’t imagine they were making insurance companies do that to cut costs for people.</p>
<p>The disadvantage to families having to secure individual plans for each member may not be the cost of the premiums, but the individual deductibles. Depending upon deductibles, co-pays and maximum out of pocket costs, this could be substantial cost. </p>
<p>Did you find that to be the case, calmom? What kind of deductibles did you have for each member of your family?</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, I priced out a decent policy in my state from Group Health, using my family as an example. The monthly family premium was $1,368, if we each had individual policies, it would total $1,618. It actually wasn’t near as expensive as I thought, for either the family premium, or individuals. I thought it would cost far more to do it as individuals. But I did notice what you were talking about, Samurai, there was a deductible of $1,750. Maybe it would be cheaper with less in the family, and if nobody got sick.</p>
I had a high deductible for me and low deductibles for the kids. So back in the 90’s, maybe it was a $1500 deductible for me, $100 to $250 for the kids policies. As my costs increased, I raised my own deductible and shifted to the HSA – but I kept my d’s deductible low until she went off to college. Then I raised it to $5000 because the basic college plan covered up to $5000. Also, while my d. was a dependent, I could use my HSA to pay her health costs, even though she was not on the HSA and had a separate plan. </p>
<p>We all qualified for preferential rates based on our health histories, but the kids’ plans were a lot cheaper because of the age rating. Also, a big factor in premium cost was whether or not the plan included maternity care. I was able to save money by opting for a plan for myself that did not include that, even though I wanted it included in the plan I bought for my daughter once she was in high school. (Not that I wanted her to get pregnant --but I did want the insurance to be there, just in case). </p>
<p>Back when we did have family coverage, the deductible for a family plan was 3x an individual plan. So no advantage for a family of 3 in any case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not how it worked, ever, for me on the private market. For awhile when our kids were very young we had a family policy, but we were priced out of that. We worked with an insurance broker who recommended the separate policies. It was very easy to do the math. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t have been able to pay a monthly premium in amounts such as you quoted. I used to pay maybe $250-$300 month for my policy and about $60 for each of the kids. When my d. was in high school I think her premium went up to about $130 or so- but that was with a smaller deductible – when she went off to college I switched her to a $5000 deductible for about $80/month, as the college plan covered up to $5000. (So I figured the high deductible would cover where the college plan left off). </p>
<p>Of course my policy has gone up & if I was still paying insurance for my kids it would be higher still. Currently I pay a little over $400/month - HSA with a $3500 deductible. Kids are grown, my d. has employer-provided insurance, my son is a grad student on his university’s plan.</p>
<p>family plan for me has always been much cheaper than 4 individual plans…basically, the ACA has forced Blue Cross in RI to raise rates…their rate structures had to change and preferred rates abolished. This is not BC gouging, it is directly because of what the ACA is mandating…but I’m sure the pro ACA crowd here will deny this even though it is clearly stated in the RI Health Insurance commissioner’s filing.</p>
<p>geeps if someone had a family of 3 and purchased a family plan were they subsidizing a family of 4,5 or 6? Did the State of RI have any say over what the insurer could charge a family and if so was it proper to subsidize larger families?</p>
<p>^ rates were still very affordable for a family plan…obviously those with more kids were getting the better deal.</p>
<p>Everything has to be approved by the RI Office of Health Insurance Commissioner. How do other states do it? From some of the posts here, it sounds like the insurers can charge whatever they like. If so, maybe those states should have been a little more proactive.</p>
<p>You have to run the numbers with the 2014 pricing nets. Today, if I add up individual policies, my costs would run about 50% higher than what I pay. Under the projections available, my kids’ pricing (just over 21, insignificant income,) would drop so low that the total changes, steeply downward. Plus any benefit to the parents.</p>
<p>Geeps, can you show us the 2014 pricing tables you are using?</p>
<p>So geeps you are okay with States subsidizing some people and not others? I mean a family of 3 was charged more for insurance than they should have been so a family of 6 got a better rate.
Is that okay?</p>
<p>^state is not subsidizing anyone… a family plan is just that, you are paying one rate for a family, no matter the size. A family plan of 3 was still cheaper than 3 individual plans, so it doesn’t really matter.</p>
<p>What actually is your point?..bottom line is rates are increasing dramatically for direct pay customers in RI directly because of the ACA…It’s all spelled out in the filing. I’m not sure why anyone needs to argue that fact.</p>
<p>WAS still cheaper. What about 2014?<br>
What you lose in RI is the preferential pricing, which was not a given. This becomes a very specific anecdotal story.</p>
<p>Do you really believe the insurance companies were not required by the State to set one rate for families? Do you think that would be the model any insurer would use. They base their rates on formulas and in any formula the more people covered the more the cost. The State required a family rate. They required small families to subsidize large families.</p>
<p>geeps needs to let us see those preliminary rate tables. I can’t find them. The govt analysis was based on the BCBS requested 17% hike, which was cut down to 12%. (They go through this rate hike request thing all the time, just as utilities do.)</p>
<p>That’s the filing which was cut back.’
I’d like to see the actual 2014 tables.</p>
<p>“Although the Rhode Island insurance commission has approved the rates that were submitted by the insurers, they have not yet been made public. This information, along with deductibles and benefits, will be available by the end of July.” I’m not finding these, yet.</p>
<p>Agree, emily–of course they go up, because they can. Insurance executives need their compensation packages!</p>
<p>This year my employer actually lowered the rates we pay for premiums. They negotiated hard with the insurance company. We were all really happy.</p>
<p>From the above Wall Street Journal article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So no, geeps, ACA is not bringing you a massive increase which would otherwise have been avoided.</p>
<p>ETA – BTW, 18% was a pretty typical increase for Blue Cross California. Last year it was 24% for us. One year it was going to be 39% – until the outcry led them to discover an “error” in their rate-hike bookkeeping. Oops! Also, Blue Cross California was regularly sued and fined for cancelling coverage for sick people who’d gotten too expensive. These are the kinds of abuses which at long last led to the realization that the American people needed protection against private insurers. If the insurers hadn’t been so greedy, we never would have had ACA. But they were so greedy.</p>