Conference 7.286::digital

    with our new benefits "aka " the car plan and the medical plan i soon
    wont have to worry  about cashing a paycheck? infact my main concern
    may well be how much do i owe digital.but dont worry this company is
    returning to prophitability 22.5 cents at a time
    

    I'd like to point out that DEC really is not alone in rising costs to
    employee. My family is covered by my wife's plan. It's gone (going) up
    and she works in a hospital. 
    
    

But a 250 to 600 percent increase in one year!

They figured it just right to push people from there current doctors to HMO's!

    Re .-1
    
    I don't think anybody is hiding the fact. The whole point IS to push
    people towards HMOs. Last year when it was presented to us that was
    made clear.
    
    Dave

    In my area -  a remote office (and I KNOW there are several), we have
    NO option of access to HMO services since personel has decided they
    want to have all to use the SAME HMO. We got screwed on this issue last
    year and it looks like the pain is set to increase. This is patently
    unfair - we CAN'T respond to the "stimuli" since there is nowhere to
    jump.

    	Don't think you're protecting against rising costs in an HMO
    either. I was "pushed" into one a couple of years ago. Now I find out
    that my HMO weekly deduction is going up roughly 45% in 1993. I
    understand the issue of rising costs. However, all HMOs did not
    increase by the same percentages. It would be nice to know how much of
    the increase is coming out of DEC's pockets versus employee pockets and
    why some HMOs increased significantly more than others.

    It appears DECs contribution is decreasing and to offset this, the
    employee is having his/her contribution increased..
    
    I too wonder what the cut is...
    
    I don't mind the increase as much as I mind the fact that DEC would
    lead you to believe (which may in fact be the case, who knows) it is
    the healthcare industry who's raising the cost... The seekiness of this
    company, these days scares me a great deal... Things use to be more
    openly communicated (at least I felt that way)...
    
    ho...hum..!!
    
    

    I am also concerned about the raising costs in medical insurance
    payments.  When you take a look at the entire picture, i.e., the
    increase in weekly deducations, the increase in deductables (my
    location does not offer an HMO--yet), the increase in co-payments,
    etc., it gets overwhelming.  
    
    Now the Supreme Court has paved the way for self-insured employers to 
    reduce or discontinue support for any illness they want.  While the case 
    in point was AIDS, all the reports I hear say that this could lead to 
    other diseases as well, i.e., cancer, diabetes, etc. And don't forget
    Digital is a self-insured corporation.  Therefore, Digital can start to
    "select" which "disease" will not be covered. (To some extent this is
    already happening when you take a look at the fine print.  Do you know
    which procedures are defined as "experimental" and therefore not
    covered under you plan?  Be careful, check the fine print and then hope
    no one covered under you policy gets any of those listed.  By the way,
    that may include organ transplants under some policies.)   
    
    On top of that, UNYSIS has announced that they are phasing out medical 
    coverage for their current (and future) retirees.  
    
    All of these "uninsured" people will be forced into Medicare and
    Medicaid.  I can't afford an increase in taxes either.  When they need
    medical care, they will get "emergency" service from local hospitals,
    increasing the costs of "bad debt" and those costs will now have a
    "reason" to increase.  (They never had a reason before, so now they
    will.)
    
    This is not just a Digital issue.  I am not saying Digital is not
    responsible for its own policies, because we are.  And I am sure that
    the managers making these decisions are using what is going on around
    us as part of the justification for their decisions.  When will the
    cycle stop???
    
    So, all in all, I guess--I just wont' get sick or old.  Who knows what
    other "benefits" will be reduced.
    

    Well, I'm young enough that I never plan to retire.  One nice thing
    about getting old is that the NRC allows you to take much higher radiation 
    exposure than them young whipper snappers.  Also, about the time I turn
    65 or so there will be many nuclear plants in need of being cleaned
    out.  Simple work, really.  Turn a wrench and wipe out a pipe.  High
    paying.  And, you get radiation therapy to boot!
    
    A fact of life nowadays is that the cost of prolonging your life will
    increase exponentially until the day you die.  There will come a point
    when neither you nor anyone else will be able to afford that new drug,
    the new equipment, the new brain transplant required to keep you alive.
    There is already a limit to how much money can be spent to keep you (or
    me) alive.  Death is inevitable.  Does it make sense that the company
    you work for, the insurance company you subscribe to, the government
    that rules over you be brought to bankruptcy in order to keep you alive a
    little longer?  That doesn't seem fair to the rest of the employees, 
    insurance customers and citizens who also have need to lead productive
    lives.
    
    I'm not saying that some form of catastrophic protection shouldn't be
    available.  I'm just saying that there need to be some limits set for
    how much others should be responsible for your health.  It seems
    reasonable to me to allow a company or government to provide health 
    benefits, but to also grant it protection from bankruptcy through
    setting limits (IN ADVANCE -- I strongly agree that it isn't fair to 
    change the limits once you get ill) on the support that must be provided.
    
    Steve

re .8

Just for clarity, the Supreme Court did not "pave the way" for anything; they 
only ruled that the ERISA bill that the Legislative Branch passed, and the 
Executive Branch signed does not preclude a company from reducing benefits of
retirees.

Dave

    
    
    	Pushed into an HMO?  Yeah, right...I chose an HMO last year only
    	to see my premium increase 318% for next year. Sounds like they
    	suckered people in with the lure of lower costs only to lower the
    	boom after you've become comfortable with a particular doctor, etc.
    
    	John

    Our HMO was just bought out by Blue Cross. The coverage decreased, 
    the premiums went up 50%, the emergency room copayment doubled, and the
    copayment for regular visits/prescription drugs tripled.
    
    Linda 

    one think I did not like about Harvard plane is that you have to go
    to the doctor they tell you to. like i wanted my eyes examined, so they
    send me to this place they do business with, i did not like how they
    did the eye tests, they doc. was not even going to give that
    thing you drop in the eye to make it see double before they send a beam
    in it to see inside it, i had to remind him about doing the drops
    before.

    also i could swear the letters on the wall were smaller than the 
    regular size you see in other places, and there was no high tech.
    equipments that zoom in and out, every thing was old stuff in the
    office, the whole test took like 15 minutes.

    iam still seeing sort of doubles, and when at night i have to raise my
    classes over my nose more to see better, i think i need new glasses but 
    the doc. told me my eyes were ok, i dont trust him, but that is the only 
    choice they had. iam now looking for another doc. and i'll pay for it
    myself. 

    /nasser

Re:                <<< Note 2212.8 by DPDMAI::BROILESHILL >>>

>    Now the Supreme Court has paved the way for self-insured employers to 
>    reduce or discontinue support for any illness they want.
>							And don't forget
>    Digital is a self-insured corporation.  Therefore, Digital can start to
>    "select" which "disease" will not be covered. 

I was wondering about this.  Isn't only the Digital plan self insured?  As a 
member of an HMO I believe (or at least would like to :-) that I'm not part of 
the "self-insured" Digital plan.

Perhaps now something else to consider about Digital plan vs. HMO.

-  David

    Moderator:  I apologize if this is not appropriate to this subject; 
                I realize I have spoken more on the impact of the
                non-action of the Supreme Court than specifically on
                Digital Medical coverage.
    
                Please feel free to move this note.
    
    RE: .8 and .10
    
    'pave the way' or 'rule'....  My understanding is that the Supreme
    Court simply did nothing; they refused to hear arguments (on the advice
    of the Bush administration) reviewing a federal appeals court decision, 
    thereby letting that decision stand.
    
    The original case involves a Texas man (who died last year) whose employer
    suddenly cut medical benefits from $1 million to $5,000. for lifetime
    treatment of AIDS.  I'm not sure, but I think in this particular case,
    the employer specifically adopted a new, self-insuring plan so that
    they could restrict the benefits for the employee with AIDS.
    
    The case affects self-funding insurance plans (which would include
    Digital Medical Plans 1 and 2) under which more than 60% of (insured?) 
    Americans are insured. The ruling does not apply to AIDS alone.  
    Self-insured employers can limit or exclude benefits for any type of 
    catastrophic illness.       
    
    
    RE:  .09
    
    We are not necessarily talking 'new' drug, equipment, or transplant,
    etc.  We are not talking keeping you or me alive 'a little longer'.
    We are talking medical care for everyday, normal, major illnesses
    which are treatable and/or curable such as: 
    
              o A child born with congenital heart defects who can live
                a normal, healthy life with the proper medical care/surgery
              o Cancer treatment - do you have any idea how quickly $5000.
                is used up in surgery/radiation/chemotherapy
              o Treatment for hemophiliacs
              o and too many other illnesses to list here
    
    I've considered myself very lucky to have an excellent insurance plan 
    (Digital Medical Plan 1).  I have a job (today, anyway).  For those of
    you who have not been affected by major medical costs, I am very happy
    for you and can, perhaps (barely), even understand why you complain about 
    having to pay more for your insurance coverage. (I've always found it
    interesting that - in conversations with people I know - it's the folks
    who earn the most money who complain the loudest.)  I, however, am more 
    than happy to pay my increased share of the cost of this plan and to come up
    with the $1800. out-of-pocket.
    
    We already hear constantly about the medical care crisis in this
    country - the millions of people who have no insurance at all.  If
    self-insured companies can suddenly decide to limit or exclude coverage
    for specific illnesses for persons with private insurance, what additional
    burden does this put on the public sector?
      
    How do we pay for treatment or do we simply die because we run out of
    money?
    
    Medical care in America, insurance costs, whether my diseases affect
    the costs of your insurance, etc. are probably issues for another note
    in a different notes file.
    
    Sorry if i've gone on too long here....  My S.O. (or S.O.B., depending
    on the state of the relationship at a given moment), had a rather
    heated discussion on this subject this morning.
    
    susan
                                      

    To me, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the court case is that the
    self-insured company CHANGED the benefits in mid-stream, with no
    advance warning to employees.  People used to be able to plan (with
    some certainty, anyway) that a set of benefits would persist and could
    feel somewhat "safe" that serious illness would be covered.  Now,
    apparently, those benefits can be ripped out from under them at
    precisely the time they are LEAST able to qualify for other,
    alternative medical plans...you all know the not-so-fine print about
    pre-existing conditions being exlcuded from new coverage...
    
    	- Tim

    re: .15 - If there is any precedent here (in coverage maximums) then we
    are ALL REALLY in for it! $5000 did'nt even cover the cost of my
    daughter's broken leg this summer - more like $7,500! This was for 3
    breaks in 1 leg and 3 nights in the hospital. I was amazed at the cost
    and am sure glad I'm not faced with a $5K minimum!! 

    I have  slightly elivated blood pressure and the cost of monitoring and
    evaluating it is high, I think the doctor is fleecing Hancock with
    tests and exams. A normal visit, once a month (excessive) involves a
    EKG and a breathing test, both $450 plus $100 office call. I am only 5
    pionts over what is considered the high end of normal. DEC is now self
    insured relative to Hancock and is getting hammered by people like my
    doctor, I attempeted to switch doctors only to find they do not except
    insurance and charge even more as they perform more protective medical
    services, to cover their own butts from law suits. Whats a person to
    do. Under Hancock DEC gets it in the END anyway. They must resort to
    HMO's to cover DEC. It turns out my doctor who currently is screwing
    Hancock is also a member of the HMO I feel compeled to sign up with as
    I cannot afford $83. a week for family coverage under Hancock.
    
    It will be interesting to see if the level of service changes at my
    doctors office under HMO coverage. My baby looses her doctor which is a
    loss but she will recover as she is young and my wife hates her Gyno
    type and is receptive to a change.( Her gyno wears a wig and my wife
    bears it all, open. She wonders about him as do I)
    
    Sign of the times. We are all on our own. No more Teamsters or other
    strong labor interests Which is fine by me. We are a bunch of cleaver
   folks who got this far in the computer field and we will work past the
    current shakeout and come out of it stronger than before. You have to
    either beleave it or leave it.
    
    Regarding Cigna as an HMO, They are a DEC customer, DO BUSINESS with
    our customers and you will enjoy a higher level of satisfaction I would
    expect.

    >Regarding Cigna as an HMO, They are a DEC customer, DO BUSINESS with
    >our customers and you will enjoy a higher level of satisfaction I would
    >expect.

    That's ridiculous.  Nobody there cares who you work for.

    >type and is receptive to a change.( Her gyno wears a wig and my wife
    >bears it all, open. She wonders about him as do I)

    That's even more ridiculous.  If you 'wonder' about him, why didn't she
    change a long time ago???

    >bears it all, open.

    What else do you expect at a gynecologist office?
    
    Bob

    .18
    
    You've got to find another doctor!!  I've got high B/P that rose
    to 190/150 with a pulse rate of 112 this past February (it did put
    me out on STD); although my doctor *insists* on monthly visits also
    to monitor me, I'm not paying (nor is DMP2) anything similar to you.
    
    My doctor and I have reached an agreement; he will write a prescrition
    for the meds for 3 months *only* if I agree to come for the monthly
    visits....but his office fee is only $30.  He is not a cardiologist,
    but has referred me to one when he has deemed it necessary (twice in
    6 years).  
    
    The cardiologist really puts me through my paces (first time on that
    treadmill I thought if I *wasn't* having a heart attack, that machine
    just might do it) :-)  Now that I'm back at work the B/P has slowly
    climbed back up to 160/100; not terrific, but it's been worse.   My
    doctor mentioned last month that he might have to increase the daily
    dosage and we'll see how that works; he's conservative and cautious
    and doesn't take chances - I just can't imagine the need for such
    elaborate testing each month unless there is something in your genetic
    history that would make a 5 point hike a tremendous risk.
    
    High B/P is not to be ignored, but perhaps another doctor might find
    more reasonable means to keep it under control.
    
    Karen