FreemanB wrote: ↑
Thu May 28, 2020 8:39 am
Kaizen Soze wrote: ↑
Wed May 27, 2020 3:28 pm
Bambino is required
to be on Mother's insurance for the first 30 days. If we decide to add him to Father's plan, the effective date would be 30 days after birth.
Did you get this from all of them? I've never heard of newborn insurance working like this. Everything I've ever seen or heard states that you have 30 days to enroll the newborn in a parent's insurance plan, which will then provide coverage retroactively. When my wife had our baby, we enrolled her under my plan, not my wife's.(Everything related to the delivery was covered under my wife, but everything afterwards that wasn't was billed to my insurance) I think the hospital will generally assume the baby will have the same insurance as the mother until they are told otherwise, but it doesn't sound right that you don't even have to enroll them for the first month. I would definitely verify this by finding the plan documentation in writing. Never trust what insurance company reps tell you on the phone, since you can call three times and get three different answers, none of which are actually correct.
In your case though, I'd probably stick with the Mother's plan for now, and as other's suggested, evaluate it during open enrollment.
1. I was in this precise situation and it was counterintuitive. The bottom line, as others have said, is that you have to see what your specific plan's rules are. I'd second Freeman's skepticism of anything phone reps tell you. It's unfortunate but unless you want to get into recording calls, which is its own hassle and questionably legal in areas, you have to just learn the plan documents. Move to email, if possible, and then write something to "confirm your understanding" of a section that you attach.
2. Re: whose insurance covers who, we ran into this precise snafu. On our plan, anyway, I was surprised to discover the insurer absorbing perinatal infant expenses on the mother's plan. I had enrolled the newborn on my (father's) plan and there was nothing to indicate this would happen. It worked against us, deductiblewise (without getting into details that don't matter). We'd have to pay either way, but it made sense for us to keep the infant on my family plan and have the charges there count toward *that* deductible and out-of-pocket max. The plan basically said, somewhere, that a newborn's perinatal (maybe it was within 30 days, I can't remember) charges *could* be applied to the mother's individual plan. My counterargument was that just because that was permitted doesn't mean it was required if the infant was also covered under its own plan. Standard operating procedure is that charges for Patient A count against Patient A's insurance. So I argued that because the infant had coverage (retroactively applied, of course) from birth and this coverage should be billed for infant's charges. Insurer kept citing the "infant can be on mother's" clause as though I was unable to understand it. We went in circles. The reps I dealt with were a combination of not very bright and not very motivated to consider anything other than what they'd be programmed to follow. Linguistic nuance was utterly lost on them. You can always escalate and make noise but it quickly reached my "not worth it" threshold and I moved on with my life. As you are now, my brain was sleep deprived and being pulled in fourteen other directions and in retrospect it was the right move.
Not that your experience or preferences mirror mine, but having walked a similar path my recommendation is to go with the insurer's flow. If they're biased toward sticking perinatal infant charges on the mom's plan, I'd suggest being corresponding biased toward keeping the newborn on her insurance for the first year to keep credit toward deductible. An exception could be if your insurance is much better, feature-wise, or if your deductible is going to be soaked up by other known things and it won't matter. I would suggest, for planning, purposes, expecting other infant expenses during the first year. I think we've been in the emergency department 4 times in the first two years for unrelated and unforeseeable things (e.g., a hair tourniquet where a hair gets wrapped around a baby's (in this case) toe. Financially speaking, they're volatile. If my past is anything like your prologue, I'd lean toward keeping Bambino on mom's plan (especially if better) for year 1 and even probably for year 2, even if it goes against your instinct (as it did mine) to create extra HSA contribution space on your plan by moving Bambino there.