Conference 7.286::digital

    I Have submitted expenses to our HCRA (deducted from spouse's paycheck)
    which never went through our medical insurance. Things such as eye
    exams which aren't covered are done that way. There has been no hassle,
    other than I hate papaerwork, but what's new. My situation is different
    however as my husband covers all dependents and I opt out, so John
    Hancock knows about me (somewhat) - I once submitted a claim in my own
    name and it bounced completely so I had to be submitted again against
    the insured. 
    	Just a little info
    Lin
    

    What date are HCRA checks usually sent.  Is it monthly?
    
    Thanks.

It is monthly.

I think it's something like the 9th of the month, for all payments processed by
the 15th of the previous month.

It takes quite a while.

    The checks are issued the 9th for submittals received prior to the 1st
    (not the 15th).
    
    I usually get my check by the 15th.
    
    L.

    For calendar year 1992, I elected to have $20/wk put into my HCRA
    account, and data from Hancock indicates my limit would be 52 weeksx
    $20= $1040 for the year. I just looked at my last pay stub for CY1992
    ,received on 12/31/92, and noticed that a total of $1060 had been taken
    from my pay for the year. It seems that the calendar left us with 53
    pay checks in CY92! What happens to all the extra money withheld across
    the US if we cannot get it back from John Hancock, but had it withheld?
    I called payroll and thay had no answer at all. I will try personnel
    later and find a benefits specialist, and hopefully find an answer.
    
     Did this happen to everyone with an HCRA?
    
                                                  Norm
    

>     Did this happen to everyone with an HCRA?

	Dunno about everyone, but it happened to me...

				Tom_K

    Yes, I too had 53 HCRA deductions. However, checking back through my
    records to my very first HCRA reimbursement, the total figure from 
    which the first check was deducted did correspond to a 53 week total.
    
    So at least in my case, the HCRA "bucket" did reflect 53 times my
    weekly deduction.
    
    	Dave

    
    Yes the HCRA balance showed this right up front. When I got my first
    statement back in April or early May with "account activity" thru
    4/13/92 it listed the coverage at the top as $1060. I was expecting
    to see 1040 as the coverage amount for the year. Thats when I
    found out about the 53 pay periods. If you've been watching your
    balance on your Reimbursement Account - Activity Statements and
    have used up or still plan to submit expenses to use up the
    balance then the extra weeks deduction (for week 53) was accounted
    for. Check your activity statements...   - Annie
    

     I went back through my early HCRA balance reports and ,yes, I too was
    credited with 53 weeks worth of deductions. Looks like a false alarm
    and there is no problem at all. What mislead me was that I asked
    payroll about this a week earlier and they told me they would only
    deduct of 52 weeks, and when I saw the 53'rd deduction, i was convinced
    there was a problem. Sorry for the false alarm!
    
                                                  Norm

I received a FEDEX package last week from John Hancock.  Inside was a simple
one page letter telling me an extra week of HCRA money was taken out of my
paycheck in 1993 and therefore money was still in the account.  I was 
instructed to FAX copies of receipts to them (I didn't, I mailed them) and 
they would send me a check for the balance.  The reason for this extra week 
being taken out was because of the advance I was instructed to take if I 
wanted to be off work with pay during the last week of 1993 per BP's direction.

I certainly hope John Hancock gets a major discount with FEDEX but I understand
the normal everyday person would have spent around $14 to send the package.
My account had $8 in it.  Wouldn't it have been cheaper to use US mail and
gone certified mail if they needed a receipt?  I didn't sign for it, my
hubby did.

I'm thankful that they notified me of the money being there, but I think the
added expense of FEDEXing a package overnight was a little extreme considering
we have until March 31st to complete the transaction and there was so little
$$ in the account.

Thanks for letting me blow off steam.  I feel better.  :-)  

Judy

Actually, if the Post Office found out they'd probably be upset; I've read
of how the Postal Service has sued various companies which have used
express services for items which, by law, are the exclusive domain of the PO,
that being non-urgent letters.

					Steve

>     <<< Note 1659.11 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent">>>
>
>Actually, if the Post Office found out they'd probably be upset; I've read
>of how the Postal Service has sued various companies which have used
>express services for items which, by law, are the exclusive domain of the PO,
>that being non-urgent letters.
    
    Let me get this straight:  By law, I am unable to determine what
    carrier I wish to send non-urgent letters?  It is the exclusive domain
    of the U.S.P.S?  Or is this something that applies only to companies
    (in which case, I still don't understand).
    
-Andy

    re: .12 "non-urgent" mail law
    
    There was a nice little ABC news item on this the week. It turns out
    there is a 120-year-old law on the books making it illegal for people
    to use any other service to deliver "non-urgent" mail. Note that the
    law applies to the *user*, not the carrier, so the customer gets
    zapped, not UPS or Federal Express.
    
    In the newsclip, they showed US Postal Inspectors raiding an Equifax
    Corporation mailroom, and levying fines against the corporation in the
    form of "postage due" for mail that was sent via Federal Express. After
    that clip, they had interviews with a couple of members of Congress
    expressing outrage at the situation. Oh yes, there's one other thing:
    there's no explicit definition of "non-urgent" mail in the law. It's
    left completely up to the *Postal Service* to interpret what is urgent
    and what is not. The Postal Inspectors get to decide on a case-by-case
    basis. Decide for yourself if this sounds like a license to steal ...
    
    Geoff

Well, obviously, if you sent it by any service which involves
moving a piece of paper from A to B, it's non-urgent.

It it was urgent, you'd have used Email!

re Note 1659.13 by DPDMAI::UNLAND:

>     It's
>     left completely up to the *Postal Service* to interpret what is urgent
>     and what is not. 

        Yes, I've noticed that when I've sent urgent mail via the
        Postal Service!

        Bob

    
    Lets hope the USPS doesn't catch on to this email stuff...
    
    I'll bet there's nothing in the law stating the non-urgent mail has
    to be on _paper_.
    

Since no one has mentioned it yet, the reason for the 120-year-old law
giving the U.S. Postal service a monopoly on "non-urgent" mail is that
by law they must serve every address.  It prevents private firms
from skimming the profitable mail routes, leaving the public to
pay for the non-profitable ones.

From a system perspective, when people use private mail services
to deliver non-urgent mail, they are stealing from the tax payers.
Contrary to some sensational reports, the Post Office may not be
the only one doing the "stealing".

After 120 years however, the law could use a maintenance update
to reflect contemporary circumstances.

- Peter

>Since no one has mentioned it yet, the reason for the 120-year-old law
>giving the U.S. Postal service a monopoly on "non-urgent" mail is that
>by law they must serve every address.  It prevents private firms
>from skimming the profitable mail routes, leaving the public to
>pay for the non-profitable ones.
>
>From a system perspective, when people use private mail services
>to deliver non-urgent mail, they are stealing from the tax payers.

Peter, the Rush Limbaugh fans will now point out that you have just 
reiterated the philosophy that the government thinks it owns your money, 
and by their grace you get to keep some of it.

In fact, there should be no problem with private industry "skimming" the 
best routes and letting the government be the deliverer of last resort,
not the first resort.  While it might make the government-sponsored
mail more expensive, the removal of the cross subsidy will BY DEFINITION
reduce the total cost of mail.  The USPS is supposed to break even,
exactly, a trait not shared by its predecessor, the Post Office.
Thus the costs are supposed to be borne by the mail users exclusively,
with no general revenue subsidy.

- tom]

(Okay, it's a second-level rathole, but I couldn't help it)

>                       While it might make the government-sponsored
> mail more expensive, the removal of the cross subsidy will BY DEFINITION
> reduce the total cost of mail.

Please say more about this, I don't see the argument.
Are you assuming every route has a fixed cost independent of other routes
served and the total volume?

>  The USPS is supposed to break even,...

Yes, but it's also expected to offer consistent low cost service to
every domestic address and its rates are regulated.

    	Of course the corrolary is that there might be some addresses that
    *everybody* would refuse to serve. Yes, I have seen that type of thing
    in other areas of business. I would love to live in a place like that
    when the government wanted to send me a tax bill.

    There was an article in the Lowell (Mass.) Sun this past weekend where
    they were discussing the impending hike of first class postage to 32
    cents. Some spokesperson for USPS said that they have had declining
    revenues of about $2 billion due to faxes. He said that they didn't
    know if they would 'go after'(regulate) faxes using the same law that
    requires non-urgent mail be delivered by the USPS. They also said that
    they have laid off a whole bunch of people. 
    
    So, they have less to deliver by fewer people and the rate has to go
    up. Interesting.

Like a company we're all familiar with they probably only laid off workers,
not management!

dave

	... is to stop making those billboard-size stamps! Takes twice the 
paper! :>)

If I can move this topic back to HCRAs...

I have the Digital Medical Plan and an HCRA with automatic reimbursement.
I noticed that my first statement for 1994 didn't include all the expenses
it should have.  I just got off the phone with someone at JH who said
that there was a problem with a couple of batches "from Digital."  They're
making corrections as people call in.  I don't know if they're planning
to make corrections for those who don't call in.

    They are not planning on correcting it until somebody complains.  I
    patiently waited, and waited, and waited, then called and was told,
    "Oh, there was a problem with the HCRA forms, nobody's
    auto-reimbursement was processed.  We're fixing it as people call in." 
    Fine, I said, fix it.  Oh, when will I get my money?  Next billing
    cycle.  Grrrrr!

    I have been getting my "auto reimbursement" checks without any problem
    this year.

From what I gather, the problem was with certain batches of expenses.  If you
haven't had a problem, your claims weren't in those batches.

I did not get a reimbursement for January, but I got a very large one for
February. Of course that could be due to January bills coming in after the
deadline, and February ones before.

I'm finally getting around to submitting my 1993 claims.
I don't belong to JH DMP, but I recall that we are supposed to use
normal JH medical claims forms to submit for HCRA.  Is this still true?
If not, what form is used?

- tom]

I think there are special forms that are printed in red.

It's the same form as is used for DCRA submissions; as Gerald says, it's
white with red (or pink) printing.  The top half of the form is for HCRA,
bottom half for DCRA.

				Steve

In the past, you could stop your HCRA contributions
at any time. For example, if you were contributing $10 per
week and incurred only $500 of expenses, you could
stop your last two weeks deduction.

Per Benefits Today, that will no longer be possible in 1996.

Gim

    Does anyone know if HCRA is support to inform you if they decide that
    an expense is not covered.  I submitted several hundred dollars for
    some dental work and got a $9 check but no explaination or what it
    coverted.  Since I have only submitted one claim since the year stated,
    I guess that JH is sitting on the stuff.  Is there a telephone number
    to call.  The check/form does not contain one.

    thanks,

    Bob.

    DTN 223-3300 or 800-DEC-2060
                        332
    
    			Steve

	I spoke to someone at Hancock yesterday to find out why
	out of 4 services my dentist provided my wife, I only 
	received HCRA reimbursement for the patient portion of
	3 of the 4 services.
	
	Services coded RP on your Explanation of Benefits form
	are automatically paid from your HCRA if you have automatic
	payment selected.
	
	Services coded CX (coverage excluded?), for those not
	covered by the plan, are not automatically repaid from HCRA.
	You have to request each item you want repaid.
	
	I can see some logic for this position, but I'd prefer to 
	have my money now and use up the HCRA in October rather than
	wait until November and try to scrounge up unclaimed medical
	charges.
	
	Your mileage may vary, of course.
	
	Sam