Return to Article: OPM approves new long-term care contract
-
91150
I now have the personalized options form and the daily benefit amount for my current 5% ACIO option (Option 1) is less than Option 2 with a 4% ACIO. It will take 12 years for the Option 1 daily benefit to catch up and 21 years to break even on the cumulative increased premium. But the info from the FLTCIP FAQ's makes any analysis shakey. It says pricing isn't based on the number or enrollees but elsewhere that persistency is a factor. Also, it says comparable commercial plans have increased. At enrollment, the word was that those plans low balled. I would like to see how our premiums were invested, if there was any AIG backing, and what the new investment assuptions are.
-
84958
I'm having a hard time justifying any premium increase for the ACI option enrollees. Besides the fact that they promised not to do it, the ins. companies are committed to pay a specific benefit for a specific time with a known inflation factor.They knew exactly what their liabilities were going in. Not like regular health insurance. This is just OPM's incompetance in negotiating a new contract. The insurance companies want us to reimburse them for their bad investments. The need to suck it up just like we all have during these economic times. Write to your representatives!!!!
-
82440
Well...I was planning on buying FLTCIP coverage. I actually started filling out the online application today. I am glad that I came across this article. I was going to opt for the ACI inflation protection, but what's the point?
This from the OPM website definitions:
Automatic Compound Inflation (ACI) An inflation protection feature that helps premiums remain constant while benefits increase by a fixed percentage each year. Under the FLTCIP, benefits increase automatically by 5% compounded annually with no corresponding increase in premium.
Obviously, that is a lie. It specifically states that there is no corresponding increase in the premium...yet there will be an increase in the premium as of January 2010. The OPM is lying. This is FRAUD.
-
82018
The premium increase is fraud. They are violating the contract. Contact your representatives.
-
77996
The major reason for the increase is due to the 'long term return on program investments not being realized'. Since 2002 there have been 5+ years of significant investment earnings while only the last 1+ year has there been a loss. Sounds like Hancock has been using our investments to cover their loses. Also, what happened to MetLife. If they are still around in the program are they going to renegotiate and increase our premiums as well in the future. Or if not around did they take our premiums for seven years and bail out? In 2016 what if Hancock bails?
-
77851
Perhaps Mr Ketter received different information than was presented to me. When the program was started I applied and was accepted (acceptance was not guaranteed). Similar to commercial policies, the program was described as a lifelong program to provide care should long term care be needed. The premiums were age based and would never never change unless I changed my benefits. The main reason for obtaining the policy when I did was to lock in the rate before I was placed in a high cost age group. Now I find that my policy will in effect be dropped and if I wish to keep the policy my premiums will be raised just to keep the same benefits. I thought there was some degree ethics, dependability and honesty in programs administered by the Federal Government but it seems I was wrong. I would have been much better off getting a commercially available policy. Now I am in the age braket where premiums increase sharply each year - to the point where I question the usefulness of the policy. What an OUTRAGE.
-
77421
re: Mr. Ketter's comment. How do you know costs have risen? Would you know if or how many enrollees might have made a claim? I want to have your super powers. This is an arbitrary rate increase. If John Hancock did not make any profit during the seven years, then many errors have been made in the "planning process" for LTC. Maybe we as "shareholders" should ask for where the money has gone, who received executive bonuses, etc. Will there be funds to cover our needs when the time comes to use the LTC coverages we have been paying for? I've yet to see a statement of funds for the LTC program. How will we know it is solvent??? Where do we go to find answers? Any ideas from premium payers???
-
77314
I don't see what all the catterwalling is all about??? The contract was for 7 years and the contract is over so costs go up and need to be recovered. Its no different than health care premiums the contract is for 1 year and then renegotiated.
-
77256
WAIT JUST A MINUTE - I took out LTC with my husband and opted for the inflation factor, and NO increase in premiums was what was promised. I have never missed a payment and now you think you break your promises and change it. Why is it the government or its entities able to break promises, do as they want? I see Congress fighting for illegal aliens who are doing most of the crime in the US, and fighting for their free this and that, and you actually think you can now penalize those of us who not only have given their life to public service in the military or as civil servants, paid taxes, etc., with no outcry. I don't know maybe those who make the big decisions in government have lied so much, they can't tell the differance, but I know what I was promised and I remember being told as a child, the bigger they are the harder they fall. The best advocates for the Federal government are its employees, but when we are continually being lied to, and things you have signed up for and promised are being changed, how long before no one will believe you. Now, people will take a job anywhere, especailly if they do not have one, but, why would you choose working for an organization that can't keep its word? I can't conceive how you would think you can just break promises that were made to those of us who took out LTC when it came out; with the inflation factor protection and now change it. If we have lost credibility with some of the governments as the papers say, then maybe you should stop and think that this may be one of the reasons why. If you can't be honest with the people who support you, why would other governments believe you.
-
77229
The government is the only entity that can consisteltly break contracts with no repercussions. The federal government consistenly broke promises to military personnel - like free medical care for life in exchange for 20 years of dedicated service, as well as dental benefits for family members. Both are out the window. I guess it is time for federal employees to take the hit - AGAIN!
-
77185
I'll tell you what. I sell both Group LTCi plans and Individual LTCi plans on my website of discoverlongtermcareinsurance.com and as since I obviously don't sell the plan to the government - I like anytime the rates on a group plan that I haven't sold go up because surprisingly enough group ltci plans aren't always cheaper than individual plans with the same apples to apples benefits. So if the rates are up for this group of people, it will make it even easier for me to help them buy individual plans. Tom Mitchell
-
76935
OK Folks.
Time to bring in the Congress.
This is the unilateral and retroactive change of an existing contract between the policy holders (us) and LTC Partners. You and I couldn't get away with it - and neither should Long Term Care Partners.
OPM has no business trying to get in the middle of this for folks that have already signed up and been paying premiums. They have no "skin in the game" - which is painfully obvious.
If OPM wants to change the contract for future enrollees-think FERS, then that is their perogative.
Write your Congressman and both Senators and demand they:
1) Request GAO conduct a thorough review of OPM's analysis and assumptions that led to the current contract and report their findings (as a follow up to GAO Report 07-202 dated 29 December 2006; 2) Submit legislation that would put on hold any premium increases until the GAO report has been completed and Congressional Hearings on it have been held; 3) Submit legislation that clearly establishes that the terms of the LTC contract in place when the policy was established remain in place so long as premiums are paid and the policyholder adheres to the other terms of the policy.
-
76851
From the LTC Partners website: "Once enrolled, your premium under the Federal Program will not change because you get older or your health changes or for any other reason related solely to you. Your premiums may only increase if you are among a group of enrollees whose premium is determined to be inadequate." I would have thought the "premiums being inadequate" would have involved actuarial studies about why the premiums were too low, NOT simply because the contract was re-negotiated. And, given that the LTC Partners site also states that, "John Hancock and MetLife have never increased rates on their employer-sponsored group long term care insurance policies", I thought we'd be fairly safe. I was really taken aback by the wording in the OPM memo, "The program has not had an increase in the last seven years...", as if they'd done us some sort of FAVOR by not raising rates, as opposed to simply satisfying a contractual obligation not to raise rates without cause.
-
76848
Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP) ltc@opm.gov
Send an e-mail to this address and voice your complaint and/or concerns about the new LTC contraact. I intend to.
-
76847
Since the Federal employees/retirees who have enrolled in the Long Term Care Program (LTC) are opposed to OPM's new contract with John Hancock Life Insurance Company, what needs to happen is for the current enrollees to cancel their contract. I, like others, enrolled in LTC in 2002 with 'promises' from OPM and have just discovered that OPM "lied" to Federal employees/retirees. I am seriously considering cancelling my enrollment and if I need Long Term Care at some time in the future, then let the American tax payers pay for my care. The United States of America is always, always giving a 'hand out' to others who are not entitled to it, namely 'illegal mexicans', now it's my turn. I am a LEGAL TAXPAYING senior citizen, born and raise in the United States of America and have always paid my way all my life (as has a lot of other 'legal' American citizens). Now it's time for my 'hand out'. There are Government sponsored programs that provide services, in this case LTC, to those who can't afford it, so now it's my turn. If enough Federal employees/retirees cancel their LTC contract, John Hancock Life Insurance Company won't be receiving the premiums. Maybe this will be a 'wake-up call' for OPM and John Hancock Life Insurance Company. Also, anyone who is opposed to what OPM has allowed to happen (increasing your LTC premiums and changing your LTC coverage), they need to write to their elected representative, congressperson, senator, etc. If you don't know who your representatives are, call your county supervisor's office and they will be able to tell you or you can look it up on the Internet. "We've all got to stand for something or we will fall for anything". I stand for something and it's not for OPM's contract and I don't fall for the garbage that OPM has allowed. STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS AS A 'LEGAL' AMERICAN CITIZEN. WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESSPERSON, SENATOR. BE HEARD!!!!!
-
76845
Why are we wasting our time writing comments here when the time will be better spent writing to our Representatives and Senators.
-
76836
Everything has increased except my salary! What little I make goes out to bills and taxes. Remind me not to join that union! Unions were to fight for the people what happened?
-
76834
In 1965 when I enlisted in the Navy everyone was promised free medical care for life as a benefit for a career of service. They made this promise for years before and after, but now the gov't. acts as if it never happened and has gone back on their word, robbing those who served and gave up so much for their country. Obviously, their word meant nothing!
As a fed employee I joined the LTCP when it was first offered, again with a gov't "promise" of no future premium increases. With its inception OPM didn't just offer or promote the LTCP, the head of OPM mercilessly hawked it to Fed employees like a poolhall hustler or Vegas barker. I believe she even self promoted it by being the first to sign up. She is probably now on John Hancock or the contract Administrator LTC Partners payroll. I have never seen the Fed gov't/OPM promote something so strongly as a benefit to employees, including the no premium raise promise. Again, now they act as if they never said it! Their word again means nothing. Now as a retiree, many of us cannot handle a significant premium raise every 7 years, so that by the time we may need the insurance we may need to cancel or reduce our coverage after paying premiums for many years (which is probably their plan).
I hate class action law suits because they usually are not justified, rip off and provide little to the class, and only serve to enrich the lawyers, but if ever there was a situation that called for one this would probably be it! Fed employee unions, organizations and associations should all be up in arms with all current and retired employees storming our congressional offices and the White House with our rage. Enough broken promises and being lied to!
-
76833
Write your representatives! OPM was (and still is) misleading in their representation of the inflation protection protection. Had I known my rates could go up, I would not have signed on for inflation protection, which would have saved me LOTS of money over the past 7 years. I am very disappointed in OPM, to say the least.
-
76832
I took the benefits in 2002 for the same reason as the others who have expressed outrage, because OPM promised that the rates would not increase. I pay $70.14 each month for insurance I may never use. What is going on here?
-
76831
8 years ago I compared the government LTC plan with private LTC plans. I determined it was cheaper for me to purchase my LTC insurance privately. I am so glad I did not go with the government plan.
-
76830
When I signed up in 2004 as a new employee, the premiums were advertised as not changing so long as you selected the inflation protection program and always paid the premiums. I am lucky to be younger and have much lower premiums than other posts. Deceptive advertising at best, fraud at worst. Time to start asking more tough questions. Doubt the details will be forthcoming.
-
76829
It's "all relative" when it comes to gov't administrators and management. With them there are no absolutes just feelings. So how do feel today! SICK?
-
76826
Let's get the facts straight: John Hancock Life Ins Co HAS been the provider since 2002 when Long Term Care Ins (LTC) was offered to Fed employees. The program has been administered by Long Term Care Partners since 2002 when LTC was offered to Fed employees. Nothing has changed here. OPM has gotten a New Contract (increase in premiums, coverage, etc)with John Hancock Life Ins. In 2009, Fed employees/retirees have seen an enoromous increase in their FEHB premiums, their copays and also Mail Order Prescriptions, an increase from $35.00 to $65.00 per prescription. OPM you need to get off your as_ and do your job and not 'just accept' whatever John Hancock Ins offers to you for Fed employees/retirees, you need to find a company who will provide acceptable benefits to Fed employees/ retirees. With this outrageous increase in LTC premiums, my questions are: who's pockets are Fed employees/retirees filling with "bonus money". I'm guessing the 'bonus money' is not unique to private companies. John Hancock and LTC have now become just like the mortgage companies, banks and automotive companies and want a 'bail out'. The only difference is that Fed employees/retirees (not the entire United States of America) are having to 'foot the bill for the bail-outs' for the FEHB and LTC. I don't mind paying my 'fair share' as long as its' only my 'fair share'. I truly believe that the premiums, the copay and the increase for Mail Order Prescriptions for FEHB is just another way for the "legal" Americans to pay for the billions and billions of dollars that are spent on the 'illegal' mexicans in the United States of America. Take a good look at the Hospital Emergency Rooms and the Emergency Care Facilities throughout the United States of America. Not only are the Feds getting 'ripped off' by the 'games that our elected officials play' but now we are getting 'ripped off' by increasing our premiums for our Federal benefits. OPM, go back to the 'drawing board' and tell John Hancock Life Ins to come up with a better/cheaper plan than what they have offered and you, OPM, like an idiot, accepted the plan without any dicusssion. OPM, just who are you working for? It's certainly not the Fed employees/retirees.
-
76821
There should have been a more obvious explanation of the contract end-date. I realize that companies would not want to stay in the program forever but this still took me by surprize and when you are dealing with this kind of insurance, you figure you may not be using it for 20 or 30 years.
-
76819
In terms of OPM, "we have seen the enemy, and he is us." OPM should be selecting a vendor who has lower, not higher rates. With the potential of higher rates and a possible salary increase of only 2%, thanks OPM.
-
76815
Although I am not happy to read this, I would place the blame on OPM for not making it clear that this was a 7-year contract. My late husband and I unfortunately had to avail ourselves of LTC's services, and they were a godsend! My husband developed glioblastoma multiforme, probably the worst primary brain tumor, and invariably fatal-usually sooner than later. He was on hospice support and had to go into a nursing home when in-home care became impossible. He was in the nursing home for almost 8 1/2 months before he succombed to the disease. The nursing home expenses added up to slightly over $60,000 of which we paid about $17,000 and LTC paid the rest. Because my husband was on hospice support when he went into the nursing home we did not have to pay for the first 90 days of nursing home costs. My husband was only 61 and working- at OPM - when he was diagnosed with the brain tumor. I never would have envisioned this scenario. So, I will happily pay the premium increase, because I have seen what happens when the unexpected occurs. That goes double for health insurance. I highly recommend NALC!
-
76814
Scumbag liars.... your premiums will not increase -- this sounds like a terrific class action case in the making. Any hungry lawyers out there willing to take this one on?
-
76813
"Shock" doesn't even come close to what I felt when I read this article this morning. I, like many others, had decided when I enrolled for long-term care insurance that it would be better in the long run to sign up for Automatic Compound Inflation. What was the point?
I just submitted my retirement application and was feeling pretty secure about the future. That has certainly changed.
Someone needs to explain how this is allowed.
-
76808
Let me get this staright. I signed up at the start of LTC, and for 7 years I have been paying a larger premium because I took the "inflation protection" option. Now, my reward is that I am getting up to a 25% premium increase all at once, on top of the higher premium I have been paying all along for this fake "protection". Congress should investigate this outrage. I am writing to my congressmen, and I advise you to do the same.
-
76805
How do we form a class action lawsuit to gain a full refund for all premiums paid into this fraudulent insurance scam? The main reason we started this now for us and our children was the stated permanent premium rates. This is pure FRAUD. How can OPM go along with this? The insurance executives should be going to jail. Instead OPM is rationalizing for them!
-
76801
"the element of choice" - what "choice"? To pay up (pad-up) or leave? OPM dishonored their written contractual obligation. In retail, it's called an illegal bait & switch; here is called a "choice".
-
76800
No complaints here, if you enrolled in 2003 we have had raises that exceeded 25% so its fair that our premiums go up as costs and wages go up
-
76799
No COLA increase for retirees this or next year due to no inflation, yeah, right, this sucks. Bend over and take it like a man - BO
-
76797
Liars! We signed up for LTC coverage and inflation protection because they told us our premiums would NEVER GO UP! That was the point of signing up at a young age - to lock in the premiums. I've had this since the beginning and am just 45. Now, I have to consider whether to drop this insurance. $94 a month was a good deal, more and maybe it isn't.
-
76796
From the OPM web page:
"If you select the Automatic Compound Inflation Option, your premium is designed to include all future inflation increases you will receive each year while you are insured. Your premiums are designed not to increase due to inflation increases under this option."
-
76793
When I signed up for the Long Term Care Insurance in 2003 I seem to remember one of the primary selling points touted by the provider was that premiums would not increase. Made the Automatic Compound Inflation Option a pretty attractive deal at the time. Now I'm not so sure.
-
76781
When my husband passed away 3 1/2 years ago, my monthly premium was approximately 65.00 per month. I chose to increase my premium to 157.00 per month because I was told it would NEVER change. Are you now telling me this could increase by 25%?
-
76777
What kind of double talk is this?!! "Enrollees with inflation protection built into their policies could see rate increases between 5 percent and 25 percent." Oh, yeah, that is inflation protection. Typical government.
-
76767
This applies to us because we have the automatic compound inflation protection.
-
76764
Does this new contract have an open enrollment without a review of health status?
-
76762
In talking to several of my colleagues who also signed up for the FLTCP's ACI option, outrage is the general reaction. When the program began in 2002, the OPM information then disseminated cast the ACI feature as being a way to lock in the publicized rates for as long as one kept paying the premiums, i.e., for the foreseeable future. That was the main rationale indeed for choosing the ACI option; to state now that the FLTCP's ACI premium rates were only intended to be in place for the duration of the initial seven year contract constitutes deceptive advertising at the very least, and fraud at worst. In signing up in 2002 at the age of 59 for myself and my wife for the ACI option at a stiff biweekly premium of $156.62, this was with the understanding that this was not subject to change, again as long as I continued paying the premiums. Had I known that the ACI rates were not what they were touted as being, i.e., permanent, I doubt that I would have chosen that option, as the premise on which I relied for doing so was false. Now my co-workers and I can only wait to read "the small print" when OPM comes out with the specifics of the new rate structure - which itelf will only be in place, we now learn, until 2016. This is transparency?
-
76759
Obviously OPM has not heard the president speak on keeping health care costs down. If ever there was a program where the current administration's plans for health care costs could be implemented as a test case, LTCP and FEHB would be good places to start. "Premium increases that follow industry trends" is a code word for accepting whatever the industry decides to charge us.
-
76752
Another lie by our governement, it was said that when this program started that the rates would be fix for life.
-
76750
I think it is absurd that they think it is equitable to raise their rates. Insurance for Long-Term Health care is something that may never be used. (Unlike Life Insurance) You enroll early so your premiums will be lower, but you know you will be paying for it a long time. They should be happy they've had our money that long.
-
76748
what additional benefits, if any, are included in the new contract/plan? does the new contract provide for sharing of benefits between spouses?
-
76743
Can a Federal employee is who not currently enrolled in Long Term Care, enroll during the transition to the new contractor?
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.