Is anyone adding their difficult child to their insurance next year?

[witzend]

M is so broke and mentally ill, it is painful to watch. I know that he is seeing a therapist from time to time. I'm not sure of how that is going.

The new health care laws allow adult children who are not dependents to be on your health insurance plan. For most people who have insurance through their employers there is an enrollment period in the fall. We are fairly well decided that we will add M for next year. He needs to see a dentist, he needs to see a doctor. I'm not willing to pay for anything out of the ordinary, but we're already paying more for therapy and doctors for him than I would if he had our deductible. Of course, our premium will go up. I don't know if he will take as much advantage of it as he should. He'll probably go all crazy on his Muscular Dystrophy, which is fruitless, as there is no treatment and no cure. Maybe he could get some PT. But I wouldn't want to see him become obsessed by it.

Is anyone else considering this?

 

[KTMom91]

Not as long as we're dealing with COBRA. Possibly once Hubby is working again...we'll see.

 

[trinityroyal]

As contract workers neither husband nor I have insurance (talk to me about how universal "universal" health care really is...), but if we did I would put difficult child on in a heartbeat. Lots of his services are not covered by the government health plan, and currently we pay for them out of pocket because difficult child's disability coverage just doesn't stretch that far. medications, tdocs, phisiotherapy and chiropractic -- all necessary for his well being, and none of which he can afford.

in my opinion, if you're in a position to get coverage for him and it won't place you in a position of hardship, and it will allow him to get care for essential health matters at a lower cost than out-of-pocket, it seems to make sense. Perhaps M can be responsible for covering some or all of the deductible, maybe contribute to the extra on your premiums if he's in a position to do so, to make it more under his ownership?

Just thinking out loud...I'm not sure if that's possible.

 

[TheyAreLegallyAdultsNow]

Long before I ever had an inkling there were SERIOUS issues with my difficult child-s, I objected strongly objected to the seemingly "American trend" of putting video games in the hands of one of our nation's greatest resource (youth) and perpetually postponing the arrival of adulthood. Think about it... at 13 Jewish tradition calls a boy a man. In my life-time "legal drinking age" has climbed from 18 to 21. Young people can enlist to defend our nation years before they can be trusted to legally consume alcohol in the nation they've chosen to serve.

Outside of "special needs" situations I am principally opposed to the concept of covering young people who are able to go out, contribute to society, get work and be insured via their own employer. I'm opposed to the financial burden placed on businesses everywhere while perpetuating childhood of capable young people.

I realize the economy is bad... but I don't believe it is a good practice to cripple our work force by encouraging them to drool on mom and pop's couch clutching a video game while their 2nd decade of life passes them by, leaving them bewildered 30-year-olds wondering what legislation will take care of them for the next 10 years.

That said. We extended coverage for most of the first year past our difficult child's tandem meltdowns. We wanted them to be able to get the QUALITY help they so desperately needed.

Both difficult child's refused to take advantage of our generosity to help them walk in mental health. That extra bill is a bill we do not need to carry.

We have decided to dropped their coverage and are allowing them to experience the natural consequences of their own poor choices.

In our situation... difficult child-s's poor choices are related to their mental illness... but natural consequences have been proven to be one of the best teachers for people with their condition.

I am fully aware that every one here has a different experience.

I encourage each of you to do what you believe is truly best for your family!!!!!!

 

[Marcie Mac]

I would most definately - but he has aged out of that and have to wait until the pre existing conditons exclusion is over with.

Marcie

 

[Fran]

Absolutely.
Anything I can do, to make this battle towards independence be slanted on the side of difficult child, I'm all for it. He will age out soon but I'll do anything that will
help him get healthy, stay healthy and be healthy.

 

[Fran]

There is a right of passage for R.catholics at age 7 which was the age of reason.
I doubt there is a 7 yr old who is able to grasp that huge concept. 14yr olds got married 2 generations ago. A child dropped out of school to work in the fields before they ever knew there were other choices.
I think as a culture we are younger longer. At 55, a generation ago, there was a stereotype that women filled. I'm not ready to be that old. I guess, my difficult child is dev. delayed but my easy child, although pretty typical isn't as mature as I was at 21. I wouldn't want him to grow up that fast and have so few choices. He is a good, responsible, kid who works and is self sufficient but with school and part time work, needs our medical insurance to keep him on antiseizure medications.
TALAN, I hear what you are saying and it gives me a moment to pause and think. If a young adult does not take advantage of their medical coverage then I agree, drop it.
Lumping all young adults in the same category isn't accurate. Having medical coverage for your child because the job he works 40 hrs or more(temporary for 3 yrs) with no benefits doesn't allow him to perpetuate his childhood but is a safety net to help a young adult to get the basics he needs.
This is a salvation for many young adults who do with out the right medical care. I'm grateful to have this added on.

 

[katya02]

We added easy child 1 on to our coverage using this new provision; he could have had limited coverage through the law school but it wouldn't have covered much for mental health and we didn't want any sort of connection of his health insurance with the law school anyway. This way he can be covered until he's twenty-six, I believe, and by then he'll hopefully get coverage through work. At the moment difficult child 1 has MA so actually has more available to him than he would through our insurance. But if that changes, we would add him on too. We have him covered on our dental so that he can continue to get regular dental care. I think that, where it's feasible and the young adults are willing to use the coverage to their benefit, it's a good thing to do.

 

[MyFriendKita]

husband and I have decent insurance coverage through husband's employer, but I have elected coverage for the last three years with my employer, at an extra cost of $81 every two weeks, so that difficult child could be covered as well (husband's company is self-insured, so up until now, they did not have to cover adult dependents, whereas my employer's carrier had to under state law). Even though difficult child has rarely used the coverage, I don't think anyone should go without health insurance. Regardless of what anyone says, I think it does make a difference in the quality of care a person receives, and I would hate for my son's health to suffer because I was trying to teach him to be more responsible. Most young adults starting out don't make a lot of money, and many companies don't offer health insurance, or it's so expensive someone just starting out can't afford it. Our son will finally be eligible for affordable insurance through his employer in a few months, but if we are able to add him to husband's insurance, we plan to do that instead (so he would also have dental insurance).

 

[witzend]

I remember when I first started working, our insurance with BC/BS was an added benefit we did not pay for. There was a $10 co-pay for all doctors' appts., no extra for a specialist. Generic prescriptions were free, and brand names were $2. Most smaller companies don't offer insurance at all any more. Now we pay $174 a month for the insurance, plus $20/$30 co-pay and Rx's are $20 generic $40 brand name with certain "premium" Rx's at $80. I hate to even think of what our medical bills would be without it. I know it will go way up next year just because the insurance companies are going to stick it to us because they still can.

I'm concerned about M's teeth, too. Our dental coverage is excellent. I'm with rm. If M doesn't use it, I think I would still be comforted knowing that if something catastrophic were to happen he would have healthcare available to him. And it's possible that it might make him more employable in a smaller job market. The employer doesn't have to pay for insurance for him.

 

[1 Day At a Time]

Oh yes, absolutely! When children under 26 have their own insurance, they are no longer eligible for the extended coverage, so they will be dropped then. easy child worked a contract job before and after he completed his degree. However, no insurance was offered. In this economy, where fewer and fewer jobs are offering insurance, this one is a "no brainer". easy child's independently purchased insurance costs more than our family coverage. What a racket!

I would encourage every one who has this opportunity to take it. Our difficult child's medical care over the last seven years has cost in the seven figures. No one (other than the top 1 % of people in this country can afford that, and if we had not had insurance we would have lost our home ,our retirement savings, everything.) Medical costs remain the #1 reason for bankruptcies in this country. Until it happens to you, you cannot begin to understand just how much catastrophic health care can cost. difficult child had a two month hospitalization, 2 weeks in the ICU. That bill was unbelievable, and it was only one of his many hospitalizations!

husband made the decision years ago to completely cover the cost of insurance for his employees and their families. It's just the right thing to do.

O.K..... off my soapbox

Valerie

 

[hearts and roses]

I was dropped from my parent's coverage at 18 because I didn't go to college and then I didn't have coverage until I was 23 and then again I didn't have any coverage after I had difficult child for a few years. Fun times.

Both daughters are on my coverage. CT legislation extended the age to 26 before it went federal *they knew it was coming*. I don't have a problem with my girls remaining on my coverage because I know they wouldn't opt to buy their own because it's so expensive for easy child and with difficult child, it's not even an option for her. easy child will be on it until she's 26 and hopefully by then she will be able to purchase her own. difficult child has a few more years before she really needs to be concerned about finding coverage.

TALAN - I am in total agreement with you concerning the infantilization of our adult children and have a lot to say about it as well! However, when it comes to health coverage, I think it's important to weigh out the costs and benefits. If your kids aren't going to utilize the plan, there is no point in spending that extra money. I can't wait until I can go from a 'family rate' to a couple rate. Of course, by then, it will probably end up costing me the same!

 

[Bean]

Our daughter is still under our insurance, and can be on if she's in school or living with us until she's 24, I believe. She does still utilize our insurance (gynie visits, mostly - and some with her regular doctor). It is tricky, though, because she will schedule appointments (mostly psychiatric ones) and not make it to them, incurring a $75 fee each time. The bills come in her name, though technically my husband is the primary. I think we, husband and I, need to reevaluate the insurance issue and make sure that her coverage is adequate and we're not going to be stuck with any fees.

I don't mind her being under our insurance so much, but I think it will be a big shock to her when she gets her own or is no longer eligible.

 

[emotionallybankrupt]

This thread presents some possibilities I had not thought about. The insurance plan I have through my employer is about "as good as it gets," and since I already have dependent coverage, my cost would not change if difficult child were added (just as my cost did not change when she married and was then ineligible).

My reading is that, under the new provisions, she would be eligible to be reinstated regardless of the fact that she has married (although the coverage could not extend to her child). What I don't understand is what would happen as far as my liability for her medical expenses, and if the state insurance plan would function as secondary in covering her co-pays, etc.

Under the state insurance plan she now has, she pays zero out of pocket; however, she has very limited choices of providers, strict requirements for access to specialists, etc. I'm not sure what restrictions she is under on prescription coverage. That is where the benefit of my coverage would help her. However, it's not free. Does anyone know how this would work?

I'm also wondering if her elibility for the state insurance will change when she becomes eliglble to be reinstated under my plan.

 

[CrazyinVA]

Does anyone have a good site with information about this provision, or does it vary by state? I'm wondering if there's any chance I could get Youngest onto my plan, even though she now lives in another state. I haven't asked our HR person yet because we are a small company and I am the ONLY person with adult children, everyone else's are quite young. I wonder if they're even required to do this, if we're small and self-insured.

 

[hearts and roses]

Does anyone have a good site with information about this provision, or does it vary by state? I'm wondering if there's any chance I could get Youngest onto my plan, even though she now lives in another state.

Here in CT, your adult child needs to at least live within the same state as you in order for them to be on your policy. The only exception is if they are away at college.

I'm sure if you do a search you can probably find it. I have a link at home (I'm at work) that a professor gave us last semester. I'll see if I can dig it up - maybe someone will be by before then.

 

[katya02]

We heard about the provision through the insurance broker who handles the insurance for husband's corp. If your company has such a contact person, he or she would be the one to talk to. As far as I know it's a blanket provision that isn't affected by company size because I don't think it costs companies more. We had to pay the extra premiums for easy child 1, the corp didn't absorb that cost, but at least we were able to get him on group insurance at a better cost than individual. He lives in another state so I don't think that's a factor. I don't know of a specific web site that outlines the details for this.

 

[RPS]

A couple of years ago, difficult child 1 was living in the same town, but not with us, and working a roofing job. He had no insurance. I was able to add him to mine with no additional cost to me because I was already paying to cover another child. While I was pretty hand's off, I decided to do this because he was working a risky job. Sure, if he got hurt on the job, worker's comp probably would have picked up the medical bills, but I figured it couldn't hurt to have extra coverage. I expect difficult child 1 to pull his own weight, but knew that if he got hurt and racked up huge medical bills, it would make life exceptionally difficult for him.

I removed him from my policy after he moved to TX because the insurance company would not cover someone who lived in another state.

 

[CrazyinVA]

I found it:
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/youngadults/

I'll ask, but I'm not hopeful because of the out of state issue.

 

[MyFriendKita]

I just found out about this website, but haven't had a chance to look it over; it looks like it might have some good info:

www.healthcare.gov