Search
Close this search box.

Rule Change Gives Laid-Off Workers More Time To Sign Up For COBRA Insurance

ap_20197756329882-b321092a4d654c709e0569e650e612db26b90811-s800-c85.jpg

Rule Change Gives Laid-Off Workers More Time To Sign Up For COBRA Insurance

People who have been laid off or furloughed from their jobs now have significantly more time to decide whether to hang on to their employer-sponsored health insurance, according to a recent federal rule.

Under the federal law known as COBRA, people who lose their job-based coverage because of a layoff or a reduction in their hours usually have 60 days to decide whether to continue with that same health plan. But under the rule issued this spring, that clock doesn’t start ticking until the end of the COVID-19 “outbreak period” that started March 1 and it will continue for 60 days after the COVID-19 national emergency is declared to be at an end. That end date hasn’t been determined yet.

With this extension of the time frame to sign for up for COBRA coverage, people have at least 120 days to decide whether they want to elect COBRA, and possibly longer depending on when they were laid off.

Take the example of someone who was laid off in April, and imagine that the national emergency ends Aug. 31. Sixty days after that initial date would take that person to the end of October. Then the regular 60-day COBRA election period would start after that.

Some health policy experts question the usefulness of the change given how expensive COBRA-based coverage can be for consumers and how limited its reach is.

The COBRA extension is available only to people who worked at companies with 20 or more employees and who had job-sponsored coverage before being laid off or furloughed. It isn’t an option for people who are uninsured, self-employed or who work for small companies. And even for people who are eligible for COBRA, it’s an expensive option because workers have to pay both their portion of the premium and their former employer’s share, plus a 2% administrative fee.

“For ideological reasons, this administration can’t do anything to expand on the Affordable Care Act’s safety net,” says Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “So they’re using these other vehicles. But it’s really a fig leaf. It doesn’t do much to actually help people.”

What does this rule change mean for workers? If you have lost your job, here are some things to consider.

Pros and cons of playing a waiting game

Under the new rule, workers can keep their COBRA options open for far longer than before. It’s always been the case that people could take a wait-and-see approach to signing up for COBRA during the first 60 days after losing their coverage. If they needed care during that time, they could elect COBRA, pay the back premiums and continue their coverage. But if they didn’t need care during that time, they could save a chunk of money on premiums before opting for other coverage to kick in after the 60-day period.

Now, people have even more time to wait and see. Under the rule, once the administration declares the national emergency over, laid-off workers would get 120 days to decide whether to purchase their job-based insurance — 60 days under the new rule and the regular 60 days allowed as part of the COBRA law.

“It becomes a long-term unpaid insurance policy,” says Jason Levitis, a fellow at the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution. “There’s no reason to enroll until something bad happens.”

Still, holding off on enrolling would not be without risk, consumer advocates point out. Someone who has a serious medical emergency — a car accident or a stroke — might not be able to process their COBRA paperwork before they need medical care.

Plus, waiting too long could affect people’s ability to sign up for other health coverage. When people lose job-based health insurance, it triggers a special enrollment period that allows them to sign up for new coverage on their state health insurance marketplace for up to 60 days afterward.

“You could miss your opportunity to enroll in the [insurance] exchange” created under the Affordable Care Act, says Katy Johnson, senior counsel for health policy at the American Benefits Council, an employer advocacy group.

Don’t count on the boss to clue you in

Employers are not mandated to tell people promptly about their eligibility for COBRA. The same federal rule that gives workers more time to sign up for COBRA also pushes back the notification requirements for employers.

“Once an employer lays you off, they don’t have to notify you that you’re eligible for COBRA until after the emergency period,” says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

For many employers, especially large ones that outsource their benefits administration, notifications are routine and are continuing despite the federal change, says Alan Silver, a senior director at benefits consultant Willis Towers Watson. However, for smaller companies with fewer than 200 employees, getting the information out to workers might be an issue, Silver says.

Costs can be jaw-dropping

In a survey conducted last spring by the Commonwealth Fund, 10% of workers laid off or furloughed because of the coronavirus pandemic reported choosing COBRA coverage for health insurance.

The upside for former employees is that sticking with their previous employer’s plan means they don’t have to start from scratch paying down a new deductible on a new plan. Nor do they have to find new doctors, as often happens when people switch health plans and provider networks change.

But the expense can be jaw-dropping. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, someone 48 years old paid $599 a month, on average, for individual COBRA coverage last year. Under the new extended rules for sign-up, the high price of choosing that option could climb quickly: If people elect COBRA several months after losing their coverage they could be on the hook for thousands of dollars in back premiums.

And in the event the employer goes out of business — either when the employee is laid off or later — there’s no health insurance to continue to buy.

Might hospitals step in to pay premiums?

Employers are typically not big fans of COBRA. Workers who elect to participate in the program are typically older and sicker than others with employer coverage, the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found. They may have serious medical conditions that make them expensive to cover and raise an employer’s overall health care costs.

Some policy experts are concerned that giving people more time to sign up for COBRA leaves the door open for hospitals or other providers to offer to pay sick patients’ back premiums in order to increase their own payment above what they’d receive if someone were on Medicaid or uninsured. Doing so could be a boon for some patients but raise health care costs for employers, says Christopher Condeluci, a health care lawyer who does legal and policy work around the Affordable Care Act and ERISA issues.

“Employers are worried,” says Pollitz. After getting laid off, “what if you’re uninsured and you wind up in the hospital six months in, and then the hospital social worker learns you’re eligible for COBRA and offers to pay your premium?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote