health insurance

[jesslee83]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? tx.fl
quick question. in husband's child support hearing/finalization in september, he was told he'd have to maintain health insurance. you'd think it was no big deal. well, when i went to husband's HR benes woman, i had info for all of us, as it was "open season"(LoL), and i figured i'd add all of us/kids at one time. anyway, husband's company, and ex-wife's company use the same health carrier. a few days later, HR woman calls, and says she cannot add DS to our insurance, because he's already covered! his ex-wife has been saying the child has not had insurance since march 1, 2009, when medicaid mysteriously dropped him(we say "mysteriously", because her income didn't change, etc, and he'd been on medicaid since conception, more or less). but the benes woman said that she recieved a call and a fax, with a statement of "the child is already covered through this carrier, listed as a beneficiary under *insert mom*"...

so i called DS's mom, and she screamed at me, no no no! she'd never had health insurance on him, she can prove it and it must be some mistake because the same company carries DS on dental. that must be it! so rather than get into it again with her, the HR woman calls and tells her the same thing, even goes so far as to fax her the coverage letter. ex-wife does the same thing, faxes a coverage letter that states the child IS covered! and has been, since january of 2009! husband works offshore, and tried to do what little calling/faxing he could from the boat. but now, we've learned that yes, the child has been covered for free, through the same company, only on mom's end. and that in order for the policy change to occur, she literally had to call the carrier, get husbands HR woman on 3 way, and do a policy switch. however, at that time, hr woman was not aware of what was going on.

when DS's mom called me back she stated "oh i just called, and told them that i was quiting my job, and needed to stick jr. on your health insurance, and we just switched it like that. i didn't tell the HR woman at *husbands* company, because the case worker at *health carrier* said if we did, then *husbands* company could refuse to add him since in effect it was the same exact coverage, just different copay amounts. we just told *husbands* company, that DS was not covered on my plan, because when we called, she just cancelled my policy as *husbands* company added him to yours"...can she do that? her copays were cheaper(and she and husband do 50/50 out of pocket splits for deductibles/copays), but she called and lied to the carrier, and switched him over to our policy, which in effect is more expensive on her, as her part of the copays go up! our copays, are actually double what hers were, and the deductible is 1500 higher, so it makes no sense because she's going to be "out" money when it comes time to pay those items. wow, i typed too much! my question is, can she lie about all these things to husbands employer, and knowingly do a "bait and switch" of healthcare insurance, especially after she lied in the support/custody hearing, stating the child had absolutely no health coverage whatsoever? we're very confused, and i asked the HR woman at husbands company, and she stated the ex-wife is correct, that if she had the same company for health benefits, then husbands company could refuse to add the child, because then, it would leave a coverage gap, since both the policies of husband and ex-wife were the exact same, except the out of pocket expenses were higher. we're not worried about recourse, we're just wondering if that's even legal? husband also called florida(where son is), and inquired as to why the child was dropped from medicaid, and they stated that the child had obtained adequate healthcare, and that the mother had been using medicaid as a "side pay" which was illegal, and therefore ended her and the child's benefits, as well as made her ineligible for any other state benefits for 1 year. they even sent a copy of this, because in florida they said if he is required to carry insurance, then even though hippa prevents him from certain knowledge, it doesn't prevent him from knowing of any state benefits/denial of benefits pertaining to the child.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[Ohiogal]

Hubby should have headed for court due to the fact that the child was covered under mom's insurance. Also hubby should talk to mom about the fact that she just increased her out of pocket expenses.