DOL should be Dept of Labor
Postponed Part B at 65 While Working, Now a Late Enrollee?
- Thread starter kgmom219
- Start date
DOL should be Dept of Labor
- 6,472
I wish there was a way for working people over 65 to be made aware of the form and be able to obtain it for themselves or covered family members as part of the termination/separation process. Sort of like the old insurance coverage reports that used to show up automatically from the health ins companies when they changed.
After I learned of the form and the need for it, I had to go to a spouse former employer, after spouse's somewhat unpleasant termination there, to obtain a form. That involved waiting a day or two for the only employee that could research and sign it to return from vacation. Then after a 3 hr wait at SS office, I learned that I was not documenting having had ins coverage for the last 6 months, but had to prove I had coverage since I had turned 65. That involved a visit to an employer from whom I had had a most ugly and adversarial separation, with hat and form in hand.
After I learned of the form and the need for it, I had to go to a spouse former employer, after spouse's somewhat unpleasant termination there, to obtain a form. That involved waiting a day or two for the only employee that could research and sign it to return from vacation. Then after a 3 hr wait at SS office, I learned that I was not documenting having had ins coverage for the last 6 months, but had to prove I had coverage since I had turned 65. That involved a visit to an employer from whom I had had a most ugly and adversarial separation, with hat and form in hand.
- Thread starter
- #23
In case anyone reads this later...if you know who the carrier was at the times required, you can contact the carrier directly and ask for a Certificate of Creditable Coverage. That will satisfy the SSA. And keep you out of dealing with former employers.
I had a client who done everything possible, including providing EOBs from an employer that had gone bankrupt. The carrier (TPA) no longer existed and we couldn't get a COC. We finally called her congressman, who was able to get her an appointment with someone at SSA who was allowed to think. Finally got her out of the LEP, but it literally took congressional interference to do so.
- 6,472
This was round 1, written communication. I finally wound up not needing it so I never went to round 2, telephone communication to customer service. (I swear this is a true copy of the core communication, I have removed all the standard privacy stuff and names.)
From: insurance company cust svc
Sent: 07/26/2016
Dear Lost Dollar:
Your certificate request
You no longer need a certificate of creditable coverage. As of
12/31/2014 under the Affordable Care Act, a certificate is not needed to
waive pre-existing medical conditions when you switch to a new medical
plan.
-----------------------
From: Lost Dollar
Sent: 07/25/2016
Lost Dollar needs a certificate of credible coverage to apply for Medicare.
- Thread starter
- #25
Not surprised.
The correct response to this is: I need it for Medicare Part B enrollment. Not pre-existing condition and although it is no longer a requirement to be mailed upon every termination, you are required to provide it upon request.
Please provide the COC within 48 hours.
And if you don't get it, you tell customer service that you are filing an official complaint
- 6,472
I have one other comment about this-I don't know enough to know if it really helpful. In the same time period I was dealing with this part B enrollment, I was billed by a health care provider for services which occurred at the very end of my GHP's (again I hope that's a correct abbreviation) coverage period. The GHP created an artificial Medicare enrollment for me in the GHP's data files and then paid my provider secondary to that. In the process of learning about this new (to me) way for a GHP to misuse the Medicare system to reduce their payment liabilities, I created a my medicare account. To my astonishment, I discovered in my files, a rather complete record of my GHP companies since 2009 when I turned 65. I did not learn of this possibility and create the account until after I had filed for part B and done the L564's. Consequently I do not know whether the information came from CMS accessing detailed data available to them from L564's or if was already in the file due to some kind of cross coordination of coverage information between CMS and GHP carriers over the years due to my enrollment in Plan A when I turned 65. You agents with working clients over 65 enrolled in part A would be in a position to check this by asking them to create my medicare accounts and see if there is insurance company data in their accounts. Or maybe you already have training that would tell you about this. I apologize if this is a waste of time, it is just another possibility which occurred to me as I have tried to get my problems fixed.
LD
- 2,402
This must be the one that you were telling me about!! My customer was never able to get his Part B situation cleared up. He'll have to cough up his hefty penalty when he gets his Part B.
AllyriaRedbird
Expert
- 71
Eek!
Word to the wise who are over 65 and still working, cover thy asses, and obtain a credible coverage letter with each change of ownership.
Civil servants who had other jobs after they retired are also penalized back to their 65 birthdays. One guy I talked to had a $320.00 Part B cost with the penalty.
He couldn't prove he had been working just with tax returns, as he had pitched the stubs. He had health insurance with a large employer, but couldn't prove it as it had changed hands, similar situation.
- 6,472
I just thought about increasing retirement ages for Social Security purposes. I wonder if there are starting to be inconsistencies between Social Security and Medicare rules that are going to increase these kinds of problems in the future?
Similar threads
