Posted by yxibow on December 1, 2007, at 13:58:46
In reply to Re: Does the policy state non-coverage, or delay? » Racer, posted by ClearSkies on December 1, 2007, at 12:21:18
> > Sometimes the pre-existing coverage exclusion is temporary -- "this stuff won't be covered for [x] months" -- rather than permanent. On the other hand, the $3000 lifetime cap is just ugly.
> >
>
> It would seem that they've excluded the psychiatric and headache coverage entirely. The prescription drug coverage they have worded so that I'm not able to use the card with the co-pays, but instead would have to fulfill a $1500 annual deductible and then they'd pay 80%. Better than nothing, yes.
>
> > I'm very sorry you're running into this. Like this sort of thing helps psychiatric problems! ARGH!
>
> I find that it's triggering my memories of being deported from England and then having to deal with the IRS and state tax authorities - all that bureaucratic nonsense. Today is all about breathing in and breathing out, and nothing beyond that. Neither of us slept well last night.
>
> >
> > Some states have parity laws, I'm guessing yours doesn't? It's worth looking into that piece -- if there are parity laws, certain diagnoses will be covered, even if the insurance company thinks they're not.
>
> I'll have to look into that, thanks!
Yes, California has stronger laws, among others.What you have is a PPO which I won't allude to notable X PPO that I deal with -- you have a $1500 deductible before you get to start paying copays but with the copays so high you'll hit your annual deductible.
poster:yxibow
thread:797846
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071125/msgs/798113.html