Conference 7.286::digital

Hmmm...didn't realize my entry would be coming from a "system" account on 
my PC, VELVET.

I am Leslie Klein, and you can send email to me at a1vax::klein.

    s#it! I don't have any dependents either! 
    
    who the heck came up with *this* wonderful system?
    
    ...tom

    RE: .0, .1
    
    Yep, No dependents on file with BE.
    
    They realize this, and they are waiting for you to call with the
    information. I only waited ~20 minutes to talk with a live person.
    
    The good news (as reassured to me by BE) is that I still DO have
    dependent coverage.
    
    hth,
    
    Kevin

    They lost one of mine also.
    
    Following a phone call to them. They have reissued a corrected
    statement.

    I just called (reached a live operator right away).  
    
    The pleasant person told me that while yes, the data had been cleared
    from the "Benefits Express" database.  However, since no changes
    were made, the HMO still had my previous list of dependents and that
    there was not and is not any danger of a lapse in coverage for the
    dependents (phew).
    
    She then offered to re-list my dependents and resend a Benefits Summary
    (which I did).
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    
    Thank you for this information. I saw  this on my form but it just
    didn't register. I'm in the process of calling now and had my call
    taken right away. My dependents (husband and 2 kids) are still covered
    by my HMO. Digital has passed this information on to my HMO but didn't
    retain it for their own records. With your pin number handy (gotta find
    mine) they will update their records with your dependent information.
    
    *SIGH* of relief that we're still covered, but what a stupid system!!!
    
    Patty

Just got off the phone with BE to get my wife listed back on the benefits summary. I don't quite 
understand what it would have messed up, had we had some need for services, since BE acknowledged 
that the coverage is still in effect. Apparently the only real loss is the loss of the time that 
every Digital employee will now have to go through to get this straightened out. Even though 
you're assured that the coverage was still in effect, there's always that seed of doubt that if 
something can go wrong because of improper records somewhere, then they will. Undoubtedly some 
bonehead somewhere thought this was a grest idea to save a little time/effort on their part and 
not send BE any dependent info. Make that person a VP! They've saved a penny and cost the 
organization, as a whole, a pound. 

-OFWAMI- 

If they dumped all the data, wouldn't it be better to initiate some organized
process of re-acquiring it rather than ad hoc waiting for people to call up? The
BE people are going to be swamped with this. Makes an interesting way to
validate the database. Just admit the mistake and deal with it.

    Dito.... No dependents here either.
    Like there isn't enough to do within Digital now we have to chase
    benefits people. I wonder how much in time wasted this will cost 
    (DEC) excuse me Digital.
     Here comes another rat hole note.......
    
    					Tim

    Same here.
    
    

    Maybe they built up their staffing levels in anticipation of lots of
    calls.
    
    I, too, got through with only 5 seconds of wait time.
    
    Thanks for pointing this out Leslie!
    
    	/john

The person I spoke to at Benefits Express this morning (after holding for about
7 minutes or so) said that the HMOs are supposed to be supplying dependent
information to BE.  He offered to take my dependent information over the phone
and to send me a revised confirmation form, but assured me that all my
dependents are still covered and would continue to be covered in 1996. 
Eventually BE expects to update their records when they hear from all the HMOs.  

When I first reported the problem, the BE rep asked me if I was in an HMO. 
Sounds like people keeping the Digital Medical Plan or those who may have
switched (and, therefore, filled out a Change of Enrollment form) may not be in
the same predicament.

Val

The BE person I first spoke with had told me that I had to call back when I
had my PIN so that I could tell them who my dependents continue to be.  
However, when I called back and got another person, that BE rep told me that
they did not *need* the info, but that I could give it to them if I wanted to.
She told me that since the HMO had my info already, I was all set.

       Carol

Maybe it would be better if we just told BE that we had a recent change
in our dependent status...

...
I got married last night and we had a 13 and 10 year old son this morning!

They might be more inclined to believe this than admit their mistake.

;>
Phil

    I'll have to check my letter tonight.  I'm at little confused as to
    why we have to call and have this corrected however.  It seems as if
    the error doesn't effect our coverage in any way, so why the rush to
    get the benefits express database corrected.  Could this potentially
    cause any problems in receiving our benefits ?  If not, wouldn't a
    mailing to all the employees potentially effected asking them to
    mail in corrections ( or even better create a VTX option to correct
    them ) be more efficient ?  And isn't some sort of notification in
    order any way for those people who don't partake of the notes files ?

As the originator of this topic, US Benefits were very interested in my 
predicament and called me with some additional information.

1) She said I did the right thing in not reenrolling since I was not 
changing my benefits or status in any way.

2) She said only people who *did* reenroll would see their dependents 
listed on that Benefits Express statement since only the HMO's, etc. 
carrying our coverage have had that data in the past (Digital did not have 
a database that contained this dependent info, evidently).

3) Over the course of 1996, the various plans will be polled to get this 
dependent information, rather than the employees being asked to supply it.

I told her that I still had some concern about my dependents not being 
known to Benefits Express and that I was glad I'd updated my records with 
them.  Each of you will need to decide for yourselves what your comfort 
level is with the above.

Benefits Express was called and asked to give a clearer message to future 
callers sometime today -- the last couple replies seem to reflect that that 
message has been changed.

Regards,
Leslie Klein

    It's worse than that - I HAD my coverage changed - then received my hard
    copy only to find out that the "Express" system had NOT changed me from
    family to individual coverage - although it did correctly show "no
    dependants" on the reverse side. So I called - hit"*0" - and got Maggie
    - who assured me that she did indeed change me to individual coverage -
    and committed to send me a corrected hard copy. So much for the
    "electronic way"!!! 

    	I'm reminded of a good friend of mine who runs a farm.  He is
    constantly bombarded by various "surveys" from government agencies.
    His general response is, "Is filling out this form required by law?"
    If the answer is no, he ignores the form.
    
    	I'm not inclined to correct a "problem" which should not have
    existed in the first place.  So I'm going to ignore this entire
    thread, just like all the thousands of employees who happen to not
    see it.  If this is a real problem, I'm sure that I will be notified
    "officially".  And then I'll be happy to reply that it's NOT my
    problem.  After all, things have been working just fine for a long
    time - I don't have a problem... woe unto those who might cause me one!
    
    Life's too short to worry about such things!
    
    Dave Eklund
    

    
    
    This is a slight tangent, but all I can say is Benefits Express
    strikes again.  My husband, a Digital retiree died on September 6,
    1995 - on November 6, Benefits Express sent him a SAVE package.
    They followed this up by a second SAVE package on November 17,
    addressed to him saying that they had learned that he is a 
    new employee and they are sorry for taking so long to send
    the SAVE package.
    
    
    Sorry for the digress but I'm still very angry about this
    
    Sue
    

    Hmm,
    	I called home and had my form checked (recieved it Saturday) and
    Yep, I have no dependents (and my Pin is at home).
    
    I didn't re-enroll (change) in anything except that I HAD to update my
    HCRA witholding.
    
    Gak.
     

    
    I enrolled over the phone, giving all details on my dependents, names,
    social security numbers, etc, and my statement was still wrong.  The
    statement did not list any dependents.  
    
    Also, my DCRA enrollment was wrong. I  enrolled in the Dependent Care 
    Reimbursement account during open enrollments.  On the statement
    I received, I was listed as NOT having enrolled in DCRA.  
    
    The system is broken.
    
    

    I'm real glad we outsource this whole mess.  Look at the money Digital
    is saving.  NOT!
    
    				-John

    This is so frustrating. This whole mess could have been prevented so
    easily. I hope someone has learned a lesson from this. Thanks to the
    originator of this note!
    
    bc

From:	NAME: U S Benefits                  
	FUNC: U.S. Personnel                   <USBENFITS@A1@SALES@AKO>
To:     See Below

  Dependent Information on Open Enrollment Confirmation Statements
  Clarified
  
  The benefits open enrollment period ended on November 17, 1995, and 
  all employees eligible for coverage have received or will shortly 
  receive a confirmation statement indicating coverages for the upcoming 
  year.
  
  It has come to our attention that there is confusion as to why some 
  employees' confirmation statements list dependent information and 
  others do not.  As you recall, you were not asked to provide dependent 
  information during open enrollment if you were not making any medical 
  changes.  Please be assured that if you have family coverage, your 
  eligible dependents are covered whether or not they are listed on your 
  statement.  Read on for further clarification.
   
  If you did not change your health care coverage for 1996, your 
  dependents will automatically continue to be covered by your current 
  health care provider for 1996.  Since your current provider already 
  has your dependent information, you were not asked to provide 
  dependent information during open enrollment.  Thus, the confirmation 
  statement you recently received confirmed your current coverages but 
  did not list dependent information.
  
  If you elected a new health care plan or changed your dependent 
  information, you were asked to provide dependent information during 
  open enrollment.  Your confirmation letter should indicate your 
  elections, including any dependent data you provided.
  
  As our goal is to capture all employees' dependent information on a 
  database, over time we will collect this information directly from the 
  health care plans as well as from employees who call Benefits Express 
  during the year.
  
  Please call Benefits Express at 1-800-890-3100 if you have any 
  questions about your confirmation statement. 
  
 Distribution:
 This message was delivered to you utilizing the Readers Choice delivery 
 services.  You received this message because you are a U.S. Employee. If you 
 have questions regarding this message, please contact Benefits Express at
 1-800-890-3100.
 

  

    re: .24
    
>  As our goal is to capture all employees' dependent information on a 
>  database, over time we will collect this information directly from the 
>  health care plans as well as from employees who call Benefits Express 
>  during the year.
    
    Interesting that this doesn't talk about calling employees at home to
    get the information -- which is what happened to me this week!
    
    I received a call at home in the evening requesting the information. 
    First, the person tried to tell me that I received two letters from
    Digital stating that Digital would no longer carry Columbia Free State
    and that it had been replaced by the Free State Health Plan.  I
    informed her that I received NO such letters, only a short notice (in
    the Benefits Information packet) that "the name of your HMO is changing
    to Free State Health Plan", which sure as heck didn't indicate that
    Digital was "dropping" my HMO.  She backed off her earlier statement
    and then asked for my dependent info, which I gave her.
    
    -- Russ

Update:  Benefits Express came through with the updated statement, 
reflecting my 2 dependants correctly, as they promised me on the phone on 
November 27.  Pretty quick service!

Regards,
Leslie Klein

    Okay I have a twist on this....I noticed right away that I had no
    dependants listed when I received my statement, so I called benefits
    express and they explain to me that all my dependants were covered but
    to go ahead and give her the information and she would update the
    system.  I gave her my children and my exhusband, who according to my
    divorce agreement I cover him until it becomes an added expense.  The
    woman took the info and I thought I was all set. WRONG, two days later
    I get a call from benefits express telling me that Digital does not
    allow coverage of ex-spouses, I asked since when and she said that she
    needed me to fax her a copy of my divorce agreement where it says I
    will cover him, so I did so.  A week later, I get an updated sheet and
    it lists my daughters but not my x.  I call benefits express and she
    tells me that he is showing in the system that the previous woman must
    not have hit the right button to release the information, but she would
    go ahead and process it and I would receive a new statement.  I
    received a new statement and he was listed so I thought everything was
    fine, WRONG again, last night their was mail from Fallon Clinic
    addressed to my x at my address so I opened it and it tells him that
    they (Fallon) received a request from DIGITAL (under my policy) to
    terminate him health coverage effective the first of the year.  So now
    I have to wait until 9am to find out what is going on.  Has anyone else
    run into this problem????
    
    If I have to pay the price for family coverage and they are not going
    to reduce my rate for not having a spouse, why isn't he covered??????
    
    Why have they been paying for the past three years and why have I never
    been notified that Digital was changing it's policy??????
    
    Thanks,
    Roberta

    Eight years ago, when I got my divorce, I called Human Resources (or
    whatever they were called then) and asked about continuing medical
    coverage for my ex.  I was told then that coverage could not be
    extended beyond my "dependants" and that she would have to be excluded,
    and that the only thing available to her would be something I think
    called CHAMPUS (or some such name) which would be available (at
    considerable cost) for her for a specific time period only... eighteen
    months or thereabouts.  
    
    THe same woman (HR) also told me that if I "DID NOTHING" to change my
    policy, that Digital (administered by John Hancock) would never "catch
    it" and I could therefore get away with extended coverage, although it
    would strictly be 'illegal'.  I elected not to lie.
    
    It has alwyas been my understanding that medical coverage for an
    ex-spouse under the "family" policy was NOT authorized.
    
    tony

re: .28 & .27

tony,

I don't know what state you were working in eight years ago, but this was my
experience in Mass.:
(Note:  I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one in Notes files :-)
Up until the end of 1989, if the court ordered that you continue to
keep your now-ex spouse on your health insurance plan, the company
had to comply, in conformance with Massachusetts (not federal) law.
 In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on a case in Pennsylvania
which made a distinction between companies that were self-insured 
(such as Digital) and companies that basically just "passed through" 
(sorry, I don't know the HR term for it) the insurance stuff
directly to the insurance companies.  

The case, btw, didn't concern ex-spouse coverage, but the ruling 
went to the heart of whether states could regulate health insurance for
 self-insured companies as it did the health insurance industry as a whole; 
the Court decided that states couldn't hold self-insured companies to the
rules & regs set for for the health insurance industry.

As a result, in about October, 1989, Digital circulated notice that
basically came down to:  "If you don't have a divorce decree mandating
ex-spouse coverage in hand by 29 Dec 1989, you're SOL, regardless of what
the court orders."  This resulted in divorce courts throughout Massachusetts
being flooded with divorce actions (I know; mine was one of them (1/2 :-)

So I, too, cover my ex.  I haven't called Benefits Express yet, but I
would imagine that Digital might come under some pressure from the legal
beagles if indeed it has changed, without notice,  its stated policy of 
honoring court-ordered coverage from before 1990.  I am therefore assuming,
(at least, for the sake of public consumption:-), that Digital *hasn't* changed
its policy, and the snafus will be straightened out.

[of course, I still believe in the "Goodness of Man" :-)]

YMMV.

Bobbi

I was told in 1980 that my ex would NOT be eligible for coverage.  Who told 
me? Judge Coffee in Middlesex Probate Court.  She wanted me to pay her 
health insurance and the judge reminded her that if I did, it (the 
premiums) would be deducted from her weekly support check as there was no 
alimony involved.  ...at her request because she was trying to get away w/o 
paying any taxes.

I covered my kids but not her.

re: .30
But note that it was at the Judge's discretion, which is not the same thing
as what's being discussed in .27, .28, & .29
(I also didn't come to Mass. until 1984; a faint bell rings in my memory
that the law allowing the court to order coverage didn't get passed until
shortly after I came here -- '85? '86?)

Bobbi

I have a copy of a slide from an HR presentation called "Administrative 
Training" that speaks to this issue.  I got this from my HR rep when I 
asked her exactly this question.  The slide reads:

===========================================================================
		Digital Medical Plan Changes
	------------------------------------
	Ex-spouse eligibility for coverage

	1990			1991

	Dependent - in		COBRA only-
	limited states		all states
	COBRA - other
	states
===========================================================================


The notes for this slide read:

===========================================================================
Currently, administration of the eligibility of ex-spouses under the
Digital Medical Plans is not being handled consistently across the U.S. For
divorces granted on January 1, 1991 and after, all ex-spouses will be
offered the mandatory legal option of three years of coverage under COBRA
and will pay the COBRA premium for that coverage. 

This change will not affect ex-spouses who are covered as dependents of 
employees prior to January 1, 1991.
===========================================================================

    re: .29
    Bobbi...
    I think the state (where the divorce was obtained) is the answer.  I
    got mine in Texas, which is not an "alimony" state, and I was not
    required, by my decree, to continue converage of my ex-spouse.  I was,
    however, required to continue coverage for my children... which,
    IMNSHO, is the RIGHT thing to do.
    
    Thanks for the explanation.
    
    tony

    re: .29
    
    What with Digital's shift to HMO's from the DMP's,
    is Digital still a 'self-insured' company?
    
    Dave

    RE.0

    Stick to your guns, if you are in a MA-based HMO Digital has to continue
    the coverage, by law. 

    I was divorced in MA in 94 and am required to cover my ex by the
    courts. Because I was in an HMO and my ex demanded that she be covered
    under the HMO, Digital being self-insured was not pertinent. Digital
    has to allow this coverage because the HMO is a MA-based HMO and
    therefore has to abide by MA law.

    I called the Benefits folks, sent them a copy of the divorce decreed,
    and have the confirmation of coverage, so I believe she is covered. 

    And if I get anything from the HMO saying that Digital canceled her
    coverage I'll open a bottle of champagne ;-) and then demand that my
    coverage be reduced to individual rather than family!

    Good luck with Benefits

    I called BE and they had me fax them a copy of the notice from Fallon
    Clinic, BE called me back and told me it was an administrative error
    and that my ex is covered.
    
    Again this is all taking place in Mass and my coverage is with an HMO
    and my divorce was granted in 1993 and stated that I will pay his
    coverage until it is an added expense to me.....
    
    Thanks for all the feedback,
    Roberta