Is it true that the insurance companies will be permitted to reject people for bad credit?

[Lyric]

I heard this today, and frankly, I'm confused. Everyone knows that unexpected medical debt is THE most common cause of financial strife and bankruptcy in this nation. There aren't many people with "pre-existing conditions" who have stellar credit, save for those who are already well-off enough to have preserved their credit scores by paying their medical bills out-of-pocket--something most of us cannot do.

If an insurance company can reject applicants who have bad credit, isn't that an easy, backdoor way to weed out the vast majority of people who have pre-existing conditions? And if that's true, doesn't it completely neutralize the mantra that this bill is still a good thing because, if nothing else, at least it helps people with pre-existing conditions? I mean, sure, it's a nice perk for RICH people with pre-existing conditions--it'll save them quite a bit of pocket money--but what about average people?

If anyone knows something about this, I'd like to hear it, because I find this prospect to be horrifying. If this loophole exists, it's not like the insurance companies are going to refrain from taking BIG advantage of it out of the goodness of their sweet little hearts. If it doesn't help the sick people who CAN'T afford to pay their bills out-of-pocket, then where exactly is the "improvement" supposed to be? How is this any different than what we had before?

[derby378]

1. There has been talk of a medical FICO score...

...but as far as I know, it's only talk. I wouldn't put it past Big Insurance to produce its own credit reporting agency to evaluate whether or not little Mikaela gets her heart transplant based on her dad's ability to meet an insurance payment plan.

[Lyric]

2. Is it already legal right now?

Can they can reject applicants based on credit score right now, pre-reform? Because if they can, and if there's nothing in the reform bill to forbid that practice in the future, then I can't see how we've accomplished anything. What's the difference between a medical FICO and a regular FICO, or is there a difference?

[derby378]

5. I'm afraid I don't know the details

But last I heard, there is no medical equivalent of FICO as of yet, but see post #3.

[napi21]

3. Actually, that exists NOW. You have to qualify FINANCIALLY

for any transplant! My cousin had a pancreas transplant almost 10 years ago, and if you can't prove that you can afford the very expensive anti-rejection drugs & future testing that will continue for the rest of your life, you don't get approved!

[Lyric]

4. Does the bill do anything to stop that practice?

I can't understand why nobody seems to be talking about this; it seems pretty obvious that the easiest way to continue denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is to continue denying coverage based on a credit score. Sick people don't often have good credit--we can all agree on that, right? So unless there's language in the bill to forbid this practice, HOW does it help average people with pre-existing conditions? They'll still be denied en masse--just for a different stated reason. The end result will be the same.

I don't get it. Am I missing something? 'Cause this seems like a HUGE problem, and I've heard almost nothing about it.

[napi21]

7. I know there's language in the new bills stating ins. co's can no longer

drop people if they cost too much, but I don't know about authorizing expensive operations. In a way, I can understand the transplant thing. They won't authorize a transplant of any kind if you can't afford to survive after it. Honestly, I'm not even positive this is only the ins. co's or if the transplant group (sorry I don't remember what they're called but they're the team that decides who gets the next available XXX) are part of that decision as well.

I never realized just how expensive it is for a patient after a transplant. My cousin goes for a weekly blood test, a monthly antibodies test for possible rejection, and although he's only 56 now, he was approved for Medicare disability so his premium for medicare is $97/mo, but the supplemental & part D coverage is another $400/mo, plus he hits the donut hole by February every year! Prior to being approved for Medicare disability he was paying $1,600/mo for the ins. premium + the cost of the drugs!

[Lyric]

8. Not just operations, but healthcare in general.

My main concern is that one of the few remaining "selling points" of this bill is that it helps people with pre-existing conditions get health insurance that they'd otherwise be rejected for--insurance to cover everyday stuff as well as big stuff. Being rejected for an operation is bad enough, but being rejected *completely* as a customer because of a pre-existing condition is a terrible thing. If there's nothing to keep them from rejecting people based on credit scores, then it's a bigger problem than just being denied individual procedures. These people won't be able to buy insurance *at all*. Their credit scores won't be good enough. It's just another way of accomplishing precisely the same end.

And isn't there a mandate? What do you do if you're denied insurance coverage because of your credit score? Are you still liable for the penalty?

[napi21]

9. I only read the 1st 100 pages of the bill, so I dont know the exact language.

My guess would be that you couldn't be rejected for a cr. scroe, but a bad score would enable the ins. co to get or advise you to get a supplement from the gov't. Besides, if you think about it, what reason would they have to reject someone for bad credit? If you don't pay your premium, you lose your ins. coverage, period. Where's their risk?

[RebelOne]

6. I know that automobile insurers can

reject those with bad credit. This has been going on for a long time.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. I am not postive, but don't they put the rejects in an expensive high risk pool?

Auto insurance is mandatory, so I would think one would be forced to buy it at increased cost if they did not qualify for "regular" auto insurance rates.
I can see how the insurance company would think this is a great idea for mandatory health insurance, too.
THEY decides what the qualifying conditions are, and THEY create a more expensive risk pool for people who not meet the conditons.
And the government gets a legal "tax" via fines if you won't sign up for mandatory over-priced,
low-benefit insurance.


BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Lyric]

11. I know they do in my state--not sure about others.

But comparing it to auto insurance isn't entirely fair, because the lack of an automobile is not a life-threatening condition. Lack of healthcare *is*. Why would we have the same rules for both kinds of insurance?

Either way, unless they move to forbid denial based on credit score, I don't see how this bill is going to help most people with pre-existing conditions. I really don't. I'd like to hear someone explain otherwise, but this seems to be an angle that not many people have considered yet. Google brought me nothing. :(

[EC]

12. They already do

in homeowners and auto - so I'm guessing life and health are next...a form of red-lineing if you ask me...

[Lyric]

13. Yes, they already do, but my point is that

if the bill doesn't change that, then it doesn't help the people we *thought* it was going to help. Average people with pre-existing conditions, the conditions that tend to bring along medical debt.

Right now my Mom is fully disabled, so she qualifies for Medicaid. But a few years ago she was still working as a grocery store manager--making too much to qualify as "poor", but not even close to enough to be able to afford private insurance, and nobody would sell it to her anyway--she has a history of cancer and heart disease. Obviously her medical debt left her with terrible credit.

For a person like my Mom was, a working person with pre-existing conditions and bad credit, what would her choices be? There's no longer a public option to fall back on. If every single insurance company out there rejects her as a customer based on her credit score, what does she do? How can she fulfill the mandate, or get the healthcare she needs so badly?

How can we mandate that people buy insurance without also mandating that insurance companies cannot reject them as customers based on things like credit scores? If we try to force people to buy something that nobody is willing to *sell* to them, that's a serious problem. And it will be the people with pre-existing conditions who get hit by this the worst, people who have medical debt that keeps their credit score imperfect. People with pre-existing conditions are THE people that the supporters of this bill keep waving around like a flag to justify their support. "It's still an improvement! It still helps thousands and thousands of people with pre-existing conditions! That makes it worthwhile!"

What *I* am worried about is that, unless the bill forbids rejecting people based on credit score, it DOESN'T help most of those people. They still won't be able to buy insurance, because nobody will sell it to them. And when you toss in the mandate...my god. There's no longer a public option for people like that to fall back on. They'll be stuck in health insurance limbo, *possibly* liable for a tax penalty, and they'll be in EXACTLY the same practical circumstances that they were before. The only difference will be the excuse for the rejection.

Someone in Congress needs to address this issue and soon, because there's not much point in crowing about helping people with pre-existing conditions if the bill DOESN'T actually help those people get insurance coverage.

[Lilith Velkor]

14. People with pre-existing conditions and no $ will get free health care in prison

That seems to be the fine print to all that crowing.