truthbtold
Member
What is the name of your state? NJ
Interesting scenario here. Would love to get the typically very knowledgable input from you!
My employer sent paperwork and held 2 open meetings in Oct. 2006 explaining that, although our carrier was remaining the same, our health coverage was changing. This is part of overall company cost-cutting. We had to choose 1 of 2 coverages: an "HRA" plan (which has a deductible with employer reimbursement), and a "new traditional" plan (no deductible). My employer CLEARLY was hopeful of 100% participation in the "HRA" plan. I believe that my employer gave 2 options for a reason, very likely a legal one. Their pre-meditated goal was, I strongly believe, to get a vast majority of the employees to voluntarily "comply", then to later urge the rest. I bucked the trend, for good but not obvious reasons. Less than 1% of employees chose the plan that I entered.
I was called into the comptroller's office today. Interestingly, he told me that with such a small number of employees in the plan, it was not financially feasible to keep it in force. Lo and behold, my employer decided that beginning January 1, my only option now is the HRA plan. (Of course I can get insurance elsewhere. That is not the point, though. I'll be using my company's). He said he thought it would be a good idea to notify me personally, and that I should, sometime over the next week, go into payroll and sign the "voluntary" enrollment form. Can you say red flag? I have to question, after receiving so much "formal" written information in the past, why I received THIS notification verbally and "not-so-formally", from an executive I rarely have any contact with to boot, and not in writing. Of course, when I sign the "voluntary" enrollment form, I enroll "voluntarily"! Would love your thoughts on the company's legal aspects or concerns here!
Additionally, it was in writing in Oct. 2006 and I am fully aware that I lost a bit of retirement health benefit "for good" by not going into HRA for 2007. The comptroller verbally states that I will receive the same benefits that the other HRA members have received, but conveniently admits he's not 100% as to what I'm referring to. Obviously, since I no longer have a choice but to enroll in HRA for 2008 in order to take advantage of the benefit, I would like to receive the same full retirement health benefit as the HRA members who enrolled "dutifully" for 2007. After all, I didn't know that the "new traditional" plan was going to be temporary (though I'm not at all surprised)! Would appreciate thoughts, as well, on how to approach this.
Thank you so much!What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?
Interesting scenario here. Would love to get the typically very knowledgable input from you!
My employer sent paperwork and held 2 open meetings in Oct. 2006 explaining that, although our carrier was remaining the same, our health coverage was changing. This is part of overall company cost-cutting. We had to choose 1 of 2 coverages: an "HRA" plan (which has a deductible with employer reimbursement), and a "new traditional" plan (no deductible). My employer CLEARLY was hopeful of 100% participation in the "HRA" plan. I believe that my employer gave 2 options for a reason, very likely a legal one. Their pre-meditated goal was, I strongly believe, to get a vast majority of the employees to voluntarily "comply", then to later urge the rest. I bucked the trend, for good but not obvious reasons. Less than 1% of employees chose the plan that I entered.
I was called into the comptroller's office today. Interestingly, he told me that with such a small number of employees in the plan, it was not financially feasible to keep it in force. Lo and behold, my employer decided that beginning January 1, my only option now is the HRA plan. (Of course I can get insurance elsewhere. That is not the point, though. I'll be using my company's). He said he thought it would be a good idea to notify me personally, and that I should, sometime over the next week, go into payroll and sign the "voluntary" enrollment form. Can you say red flag? I have to question, after receiving so much "formal" written information in the past, why I received THIS notification verbally and "not-so-formally", from an executive I rarely have any contact with to boot, and not in writing. Of course, when I sign the "voluntary" enrollment form, I enroll "voluntarily"! Would love your thoughts on the company's legal aspects or concerns here!
Additionally, it was in writing in Oct. 2006 and I am fully aware that I lost a bit of retirement health benefit "for good" by not going into HRA for 2007. The comptroller verbally states that I will receive the same benefits that the other HRA members have received, but conveniently admits he's not 100% as to what I'm referring to. Obviously, since I no longer have a choice but to enroll in HRA for 2008 in order to take advantage of the benefit, I would like to receive the same full retirement health benefit as the HRA members who enrolled "dutifully" for 2007. After all, I didn't know that the "new traditional" plan was going to be temporary (though I'm not at all surprised)! Would appreciate thoughts, as well, on how to approach this.
Thank you so much!What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?
