<p>@katliamom, they don’t have to be full time students. And actually, the way it works now varies widely from state to state. Some people, even full time students, lose coverage at 18, hence why many schools offer their own medical insurance to students.</p>
<p>But is there an exclusion for employers who self insure? CT has had this provision for up to age 26 students for a year…but employers who self insure for their health insurance are allowed to CHOOSE whether they want to do this or not. I do hope the new law does NOT allow this exclusion…even IF states already have it.</p>
<p>I also need to know the answer to this…I have a kiddo who is graduating in June but is taking a five credit summer course (equivalent to full time study for one term of summer…it’s four weeks). After that…her coverage will end if this provision excludes self insured employers.</p>
<p>thumper - you will want to take a look at this website if you have not already. It appears the self insured lobby was successful in excluding self insured plans, but it is not clear to me that wasn’t changed at some point. There may be something on the site more up to date than the article link. </p>
<p>[SIIA</a> Discusses Implications of Landmark Health Reform Legislation - Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.](<a href=“Home | Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.”>Home | Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THAT affects thousands and thousands of young adults…and it really stinks if this was not changed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>does this mean that those on self insured plans BEFORE the enactment ARE covered??</p>
<p>This is confusing.</p>
<p>
Thanks for the link, cartera, but that sux.</p>
<p>LOL we cross posted. I take it to mean only companies that become self insured more than 6 mo after the law’s enactment will be required to provide benefits for adult dependents.</p>
<p>jym -that’s how I read it too. However, at the end of the article, it speaks to changes that may come through reconciliation. Perhaps this is something the Senate plans to fix? If the self insured lobby was successful in grandfathering themselves out of these protections, then they did a heck of job of representing their client companies while screwing over the employees.</p>
<p>^ cartera,
The more things change, the more things stay the same., eh? …sigh…</p>
<p>I just read more and now it seems that all plans, group, individual and self-insured plans are grandfathered in and that the reforms apply to all grandfathered plans so that suggests that the dependency clause applies to self insureds. It doesn’t make sense to me to do anything else. This reminds me of why I am no longer a lawyer. If I had printed the bill out, it would be easier to put the pieces together but it is more difficult scrolling up and down on a computer screen.</p>
<p>Edited to add - plans that don’t offer dependent care are not forced to offer it so if you work for an employer that does not offer dependent care, nothing will change. Thumper, I would think that, if your employer offers dependent care, they now have to offer until age 26 and that they no longer get to choose. </p>
<p>I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Does the new bill explain who is and who is not “a dependent?” If the dependent is employed part-time without health insurance, but not living in the family home, and still receiving aid from parents, is he still considered a dependent? Or is dependent status based on whether you claim him as such on your IRS form?</p>
<p>I also wonder if the dependent has to live inthe same state. All very confusing.
Thanks for the info cartera</p>
<p>jym626-
I have covered our family (husband, 2 now adult children) as family coverage on my employer provided health insurance for over 20 yrs.
It is a SELF FUNDED plan. This meant that grad student son was kicked off the plan in Dec of year he turned 23, which was Dec 2009. This was so even though NJ had enacted a provision that young adult children that were still unmarried and dependent could remain on their families plan through age 30.
Apparently, a self funded plan could choose to offer that to it’s employees. Mine did not.</p>
<p>So, if we had been on a private family plan, we could have kept 23 yr old on in NJ.
So just wondering if the new health plan will require employer self funded plans to allow young adult, dependent children to stay on thorugh age 26?</p>
<p>We bought him a high deductive plan but would have preferred to be able to keep him on my much more comprehensive plan through work had it been allowed.
And COBRA was waaay out of the question, about $550/month!</p>
<p>As I said previously…CT has HAD a provision for keeping (previously dependent) young adults on health insurance until age 26. In other words IF your kiddo had coverage on your plan, you would be allowed to continue them (whether they were in school, or not…or dependents or not…if they didn’t have health insurance) BUT the self insured were exempt from being REQUIRED to do so.</p>
<p>So…here is my scenerio…I work for a self insured employer. My DD had been on my plan since birth. I am hoping that this new law will REQUIRE my employer to allow me to continue my family plan coverage. Last year, my son was REQUIRED to be removed by my employer and because they opted out of allowing this provision to keep coverage until age 26 (he was 24 at the time). </p>
<p>I have sent a note to our state insurance folks to ask this question.</p>
<p>This clause would apparently come into affect in on September 23. My FAMILY coverage is PAID through September 1. I’d pay the Cobra rate for 23 days if I knew that my kid would be covered on my plan after that (even though I think THAT is annoying too).</p>
<p>@krdirect and jym: That is my question as well! What is the definition of “dependent?” The IRS’ definition of a dependent child is (from IRS web site):</p>
<p>In general, to be a taxpayer’s qualifying child, a person must satisfy four tests:</p>
<pre><code>* Relationship — the taxpayer’s child or stepchild (whether by blood or adoption), foster child, sibling or stepsibling, or a descendant of one of these.
- Residence — has the same principal residence as the taxpayer for more than half the tax year. Exceptions apply, in certain cases, for children of divorced or separated parents, kidnapped children, temporary absences, and for children who were born or died during the year.
- Age — must be under the age of 19 at the end of the tax year, or under the age of 24 if a full-time student for at least five months of the year, or be permanently and totally disabled at any time during the year.
- Support — did not provide more than one-half of his/her own support for the year.
</code></pre>
<p>So, are the definitions going to be different? Is the IRS going to change? I agree, this is pretty confusing! But, I am really glad that this is in the mix! Thanks to everyone for your help…</p>
<p>There is another thread on this topic- <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/888012-new-insurance-rules-coverage-26-a.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/888012-new-insurance-rules-coverage-26-a.html</a>
These shoudl be merged-- same discussion and very helpful</p>
<p>MOD NOTE: I have just merged these threads, per the request that came in via a report. Thanks for the suggestion. - Mod JEM</p>
<p>My understanding is that these kids can remain on your policy IF you have had them on it. In other words, if your kiddo was a dependent college student this year…and they graduate, they can be allowed to stay on your plan. I don’t believe there is a dependency tied to keeping them on. They just can NOT have health insurance through any other means. They can be employed and working…just no health insurance. BUT yes…the former student or whatever…must reside in the state that the policy holder resides in.</p>
<p>That is the way CT’s bill reads…but for the fully insured only. Folks here have told me that the federal bill is the same…just trying to figure out if the self insured are exempt.</p>
<p>I found the bill, thanks to another poster on another thread. Here is the part we have been asking about:</p>
<p>‘‘SEC. 2714. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance
issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that
provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make
such coverage available for an adult child (who is not married)
until the child turns 26 years of age. Nothing in this section shall
require a health plan or a health insurance issuer described in
the preceding sentence to make coverage available for a child of
a child receiving dependent coverage.
‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations
to define the dependents to which coverage shall be made available
under subsection (a).
‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to modify the definition of ‘dependent’ as used in
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the tax treatment
of the cost of coverage.</p>
<p>Thanks for the wording. In this, it sounds like the kiddo must still be a dependent. That is fine with me…DD will be this year. </p>
<p><a href=“b”>quote</a> REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations
to define the dependents to which coverage shall be made available
under subsection
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bet that self insurance lobby has worked long and hard to be exempt…I guess we have to “stay tuned”.</p>
<p>I just expect to receive an email from my employer telling me what the changes will be sometime in the next six months. Can you imagine all of the payroll software that’s going to have to be changed in the next six months?</p>