Re: pre-diabetes - joyce

[Guest guest]

>

> I think I would rather pay for the machine than have a doctor put on my

> medical records I was diabetic, if I was not diabetic. Life insurance

> policies, etc.

What difference would it make? They can't release that kind of info to a

life insurance company and usually a life insurance company will ask *YOU*

about any 'pre-existing conditions'. Also, if there is a concern about

these types of things, the life insurance company will have you go to their

physician for a physical. When they do tests they will do a blood sugar

test and possibly an A1C. So, it wouldn't make any difference if the

record in your doctors office made a reference to diabetes or not.... the

test results are what will provide that information.

Mike

[Guest guest]

Thanks MIKE, your responses always make me feel good, thanks for your

on-going support in this.

JOYCE from Philly

Re: pre-diabetes - joyce

>

> I think I would rather pay for the machine than have a doctor put on my

> medical records I was diabetic, if I was not diabetic. Life insurance

> policies, etc.

What difference would it make? They can't release that kind of info to a

life insurance company and usually a life insurance company will ask *YOU*

about any 'pre-existing conditions'. Also, if there is a concern about

these types of things, the life insurance company will have you go to their

physician for a physical. When they do tests they will do a blood sugar

test and possibly an A1C. So, it wouldn't make any difference if the

record in your doctors office made a reference to diabetes or not.... the

test results are what will provide that information.

Mike

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> What difference would it make? They can't release that kind of info to a

> life insurance company and usually a life insurance company will ask *YOU*

> about any 'pre-existing conditions'. Also, if there is a concern about

> these types of things, the life insurance company will have you go to

> their

> physician for a physical. When they do tests they will do a blood sugar

> test and possibly an A1C. So, it wouldn't make any difference if the

> record in your doctors office made a reference to diabetes or not.... the

> test results are what will provide that information.

>

>

It might not make a difference for life insurance purposes (I don't know;

the only life insurance we have is through my husband's workplace and I'm

not familiar with the details), but it can possibly make a difference if the

insured switches insurance at some point down the road. Depending on the

state she lives in, and the type of policy she is switching to, she could be

hit with pre-existing condition clauses that would deny coverage for

diabetes-related supplies for a period of time after enrolling in the new

policy.

I am speaking from painful personal experience here.

Also, from a more philosophical standpoint, it seems wrong that you would

have to be diagnosed with a disease you apparently don't actually have, just

to get preventive medical equipment. As I said in my prior post (before I

read this one), definitely call your insurance company to find out whether

you actually have to be diagnosed or not. And good luck! (I hate dealing

with insurance companies...but it's a necessary evil, sometimes.)

Molly

[Guest guest]

>

> It might not make a difference for life insurance purposes (I don't know;

> the only life insurance we have is through my husband's workplace and I'm

> not familiar with the details), but it can possibly make a difference if

> the

> insured switches insurance at some point down the road. Depending on the

> state she lives in, and the type of policy she is switching to, she could

> be

> hit with pre-existing condition clauses that would deny coverage for

> diabetes-related supplies for a period of time after enrolling in the new

> policy.

It can make a difference ONLY if you actually have the disease. If you

don't, it's not an issue. As far as insurance goes, for group health, if

you sign up for the policy at the time you are eligible, pre-existing

conditions are typically not a problem. IF you don't sign up at the time

you are eligible, you may then be subject to underwriting processes.

If you want to maintain a policy obtained under a group (i.e., from work),

COBRA legislation allows for that as long as you make the payments.

Switching from the group or COBRA version of the group policy may subject

you to underwriting when you convert to a private plan. But this would be

true regardless of whether or not you have a diagnosis of diabetes on your

history... when you answer the health care questions and submit to the blood

tests, they would find out about diabetes.

(And, if you managed to hide this someway, you could be subjected to

criminal prosecution if you filed a claim.)

Mike

Mike

[Guest guest]

>

>

> It can make a difference ONLY if you actually have the disease. If you

> don't, it's not an issue. As far as insurance goes, for group health, if

> you sign up for the policy at the time you are eligible, pre-existing

> conditions are typically not a problem. IF you don't sign up at the time

> you are eligible, you may then be subject to underwriting processes.

>

>

This is far from universally true, and as far as " not actually having the

disease, " I would venture to say that insurance companies don't really care

whether or not you actually have the disease. If a doctor has committed an

official diagnosis to your records, for all intents and purposes, you have

the disease. Try calling up an insurance company sometime and explaining

that even though you have a diagnosis in your medical records, and even

though you have been prescribed diabetic medications and supplies, you

aren't *really* diabetic, so pre-existing condition clauses shouldn't apply

to you. If anyone has success with this, please report back to this group.

I would highly, highly, highly recommend that anyone reading this thread

disregard the advice above, and investigate insurance laws and regulations

in your own state or area before allowing a doctor to diagnose you when you

don't actually have the disease in question. I would also recommend that

anyone who is tempted to give out general insurance advice remember that

insurance laws do vary widely from state to state. Having moved around the

country quite a bit, we've had some personal experience with this.

Molly

[Guest guest]

>

> This is far from universally true, and as far as " not actually having the

> disease, " I would venture to say that insurance companies don't really

> care

> whether or not you actually have the disease. If a doctor has committed

> an

> official diagnosis to your records, for all intents and purposes, you have

> the disease. Try calling up an insurance company sometime and explaining

> that even though you have a diagnosis in your medical records, and even

> though you have been prescribed diabetic medications and supplies, you

> aren't *really* diabetic, so pre-existing condition clauses shouldn't

> apply

> to you. If anyone has success with this, please report back to this

> group.

Unless you have signed a release to have your medical records sent to a Life

insurance company they can not receive them.. Read the HIPAA legislation.

Additionally, I'm referring to a VALID diagnosis and not to a situation

where you are having someone fradulently submitting claims on your behalf to

an insurance company.

I can guarantee you if you have gone to a doctor and he as tested you and

found a high fasting blood sugar you already have diabetes on your medical

record.

Group health insurance policies (i.e. the kind through an employer)

generally do not have a pre-existing condition clause if you sign up for the

policy at the *FIRST* opportunity that it is made available to you.

There is good reason for this. This type of setup helps ensure that the

insurance company is getting a mix of healthy individuals, and not just

those who really need the insurance. By waiving clauses of prexisting

conditions on initial eligibility, they reduce the risk of adverse

selection, which would drive up the number of claims in percentage to

policies in effect. It increases the pool of subscribers and does just

exactly what states try to do when they create 'state wide pools' to allow

individuals to take advantage of group rates for insurance.

The same is generally true for life insurance, in fact, many companies that

offer life insurance to employees provide a certain level to everyone

automatically.

I have never worked anywhere where there was an issue for 'pre-existing'

conditions when you signed up for the policy when you were first eligible (

i.e., at the start of employment, or after a probationary period if

applicable). This includes through 17 years in the insurance health

insurance industry.

By the way, COBRA and HIPAA are FEDERAL not state laws, they don't vary from

state to state.

Of course there can always be the exception to anything... but I believe you

will find this quite accurate when you look at group insurance through an

employer, regardless of the state.

Mike

[Guest guest]

>

> I can guarantee you if you have gone to a doctor and he as tested you and

> found a high fasting blood sugar you already have diabetes on your medical

> record.

Define " high " . Someone who has higher-than-normal blood sugar but is lower

than the cutoff for diabetes (say, FBG of 110) might be considered

prediabetic but avoid actual diagnosis of diabetes for many years.

Group health insurance policies (i.e. the kind through an employer)

> generally do not have a pre-existing condition clause if you sign up for

> the

> policy at the *FIRST* opportunity that it is made available to you.

This has not been my experience, and even if it is " generally " true, that

certainly does not make it " universally " true, which is what I said earlier,

and which is why I strongly recommend that individuals investigate what

their own insurance covers, does not cover, considers to be pre-existing,

etc. It wouldn't hurt to investigate state insurance laws, either, if you

think there's even a small chance that you'll be changing insurance

companies at any point.

I have never worked anywhere where there was an issue for 'pre-existing'

> conditions when you signed up for the policy when you were first eligible

> (

> i.e., at the start of employment, or after a probationary period if

> applicable). This includes through 17 years in the insurance health

> insurance industry.

Is the insurance health insurance industry down the hall from the Department

of Redundancy Department? :-)

At one of my previous places of employment, which was in Washington State

just for reference, my workplace switched insurance companies after I'd been

working there for several months. The new insurance company initially

informed me that because I was a new policyholder, and because I had a

pre-existing condition (diabetes), there would be a waiting period of 12

months before they would cover any tests, materials, doctors' visits, etc.

that had to do with diabetes. They only relented when I submitted paperwork

demonstrating that 1) I had had continuing insurance coverage from prior to

my first use of test strips and insulin, and 2) I had never been diagnosed

anyway! (At the time my doctors considered me to be pre-diabetic; I'd used

insulin only while pregnant.)

This is obviously a better situation than not ever being able to get

coverage at all, but 12 months without insurance coverage for test strips,

medications, and so forth can be a very long time to someone of limited

means.

All I'm saying is, before letting a doctor diagnose you as diabetic just to

get a meter, of all things - investigate the situation and make sure it

isn't going to bite you in the rear later down the road. Especially when

getting a meter is usually just about the easiest part of being diabetic!

(I'm surprised the meter companies don't send them out free in the mail,

honestly.)

Molly

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Define " high " . Someone who has higher-than-normal blood sugar but is

> lower

> than the cutoff for diabetes (say, FBG of 110) might be considered

> prediabetic but avoid actual diagnosis of diabetes for many years.

Anything that might prompt the physician to put 250.00 in the diagnosis

field of the chart.

> Is the insurance health insurance industry down the hall from the

> Department

> of Redundancy Department? :-)

It's down the hall hall and around the corner corner. :-)

At one of my previous places of employment, which was in Washington State

> just for reference, my workplace switched insurance companies after I'd

> been

> working there for several months. The new insurance company initially

> informed me that because I was a new policyholder,

It's hard to say what instructions the clerks and customer service reps had

regarding this change... it is a slightly different situation than starting

a new job and signing up for their group insurance as soon as you are

eligible or during an 'open enrollment' period.

I could see how computer records may have said you started employment on

1/1/2001 and the new policy had an effective date of 5/1/2005 (or whatever

dates might be appropriate)... it could have been a unique situation for the

setup or their records could have been setup wrong for some reason. It's

hard to say.

All I'm saying is, before letting a doctor diagnose you as diabetic just to

> get a meter, of all things - investigate the situation and make sure it

> isn't going to bite you in the rear later down the road. Especially when

> getting a meter is usually just about the easiest part of being diabetic!

> (I'm surprised the meter companies don't send them out free in the mail,

> honestly.)

When it comes down to getting a meter covered by your insurance, you may

need nothing more than a prescription. Typically prescriptions don't show

(or require) a diagnosis anyway.

But that will vary from policy to policy.

Mike