Anthem Arrests Customer For Daring to Question Them

Virginia's authoritarian heritage is on full display in this video. (4.00 / 1)

Any policeman with a modicum of training would have avoided an arrest in this circumstance and would have only arrested the demonstrator after inquiring if he wanted to be arrested.

[Yeah, I know sometimes demonstrators want the theater of an arrest but nothing in this video indicates that desire by this individual.]  

Can we agree that Anthem requesting the arrest was despicable?

Can we agree that it is despicable for Anthem sending customers an e-mail imploring them to oppose the public option which would lower small business' premia?

Is this an example of the "legitimate service" that Obama was referring to Wednesday night?

I wonder if Senator Warner is happy to have Anthem as an ally and their officers as campaign contributors during the health care debate?

---

by: martinlomasney @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 15:17:49 PM CDT

and can we agree... (4.00 / 1)

that it is pretty hypocritical to urge customers to contact congress about health care reform and then refuse to talk to customers about health care reform?

If you don't want to have the discussion, don't encourage others to.

---

by: Rusty5329 @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 17:38:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Anthem is the insurance company for state employees. (4.00 / 3)

They're currently in the process of auditing all the state employee accounts in a search for ineligible dependents. This take the form of an affidavit mailed to all state employees this week, in which you have to affirm that all your dependents are in fact eligible.

A few choice bits from the affidavit materials:

In the intro, it says:

"...the program wants to make sure that you are paying only for eligible plan members."

So they're clearly concerned that we might be paying too much, right? But then later:

"The Virginia Administrative Code states that an employee who enrolls an ineligible dependent may be excluded from participation in the state plan for a period of up to three years. However, should you self report an ineligible dependent during this process, the plan will not exercise this option..."

"Be aware that the plan reserves the right to retract claims paid on behalf of the ineligible dependent."

Note, of course, that if you have an ineligible dependent, you've been paying premiums for them all this time. So, eligible or not, Anthem has been paid to provide the coverage for those people. Yet there's no offer to pay back the extra premiums you've paid.

(For reference, my premiums are over $1500/month for 3 people, of which I pay about $400/month with my agency paying the balance.)

Also note the next sentence:

"In addition, you will not be allowed to make enrollment changes until the next Open Enrollment period..."

If I'm reading this correctly, they're saying that if you do have an ineligible dependent, not only do they charge you for any past claims they've paid, and not return past premiums, but you have to keep paying the extra premium until the Open Enrollment period (next April, I believe).

"If you do not respond ... you risk losing coverage under the State Health Benefits Plan for up to three years."

This one surprised me too:

"Note: Ex-spouses will not be eligible, even with a court order."

Didn't know they could do that.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Anthem is doing anything illegal here, and I certainly am not advocating lying on enrollment forms. All my dependents are eligible, so this has no direct adverse effect on me or my family, and I'll be mailing the affidavit tomorrow. But it does serve to show where Anthem's loyalties lie.

---

by: hopeful monster @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 18:35:10 PM CDT

thanks so much for that info... (0.00 / 0)

And you're right that none of it is illegal, which is the problem. Hopefully, the final health care reform bill contains language that makes it harder for insurance companies to screw us over.

---

by: Rusty5329 @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 19:15:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why is denial of "ex-spouse" rights in accordance with a "court order" not illegal ? (0.00 / 0)

No contract that I have ever read about (including when I studied law at GWU) is considered can be considered valid if it is in violation of a court order. This certainly the case in the situation of retirement or other benfits included in a divorce agreement (also an enforceable contract).

The simpler way to say this is that no provision in any contract is , or if the contract (in this case, the Anthem insurance contract)violates any judicial decision such as a COURT ORDER.

Any of you legal beagles care to comment on which takes precedence, an opinion by Anthem lawyers trumps a court order when a judge has ruled in favor of a divorcee's court-approved divorce agreement rights ? Does Fed. law or Va. state law prohibit a court order requiring continuation of health insurance benefits if a divorce court judge orders continuation of the insurance benefits as a part of the divorce terms ? Does an insurance company have the legal right to disregard a court order by citing what most would consider a legally questionable provision in their insurance "contract" terms ?

---

by: Tom @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 20:38:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My take on the "affidavit exercise... (0.00 / 0)

It seems more like a bureaucratic exercise designed to enable them to say "we didn't receive your affidavit."  No insurance for you!  For three years!  Sounds like a money saving device either by the insurance company or the state.


"One person, one vote" died at the hands of SCOTUS, January 21, 2010

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 08:17:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]