What is it with these people today???!!?

[notalwaysright]

Last quarter we briefly went over HIPAA and the HITECH Act in my IT Ethics class... That stuff is no joke! Huge fines, and in criminal cases even jail time. There's no wiggle room, no "manager overrides" no exceptions.

On a side note, my parents have been dealing with Verizon* to try to get my mom on the list of people who can make account changes... It is impossible. We have spent hours, filled out forms, and have actually been told that she is on the list, but the next time she called she was told no again. It's frustrating, but my mom at least is nice about it.

*some people say Red Check, is that a rule on this board? I didn't see it in the sticky

[roxtar]

HIPAA is very strict about what info can be released and to whom. Also, most people who "work in healthcare" are pretty ignorant about information security.

[Evannah]

These people need to learn to understand that it's really nasty to yell and be rude to the call-centre operative when it comes to policies. It's like screaming at a cashier over a company-wide policy. I mean WTF! It's a COMPANY policy, do you really think yelling at me, a cashier, is going to help? If you've got a problem, take it to head office!

[Automan Empire]

I knew someone who worked at Chancellor Temporarie for over 20 years. One day, a regular patient (weekly visits for years) was in, and her daughter who was her caregiver and the one who always brought her in asked something about her mother's health info. Somehow she went and complained, and my friend was fired and even lost her union appeal because it was a HIPPA violation.

[sms001]

Even if Caller #2 was correct about what can be released, if company policy details what can't be released, that's it. Too bad you were sick, and too bad you're gonna miss your deadline, but that's just the way it went for you this go round. Stop yelling at people that didn't cause the situation.

[wolfie]

On a side note, my parents have been dealing with Verizon*

*some people say Red Check, is that a rule on this board? I didn't see it in the sticky

My understanding is that the "no real names" rule is to keep people from getting in trouble with their employer in the event that the employer does a search on the company name to see what workers are saying in social media. AFAIK, it's a recommendation to avoid "outing" yourself. Since your parents are customers, rather than employees, any rule about company names would probably treat the situation more loosely.

[RealUnimportant]

"Rabble rabble rabble the law says so."

"I'm sorry, while my training here does include a good deal of information on that law, for obvious reasons, I'm not familiar with the passage your quoting. If you could point me towards that specific item of legislation, I'll see what can be done."

You're not outright calling them a liar, but you are putting the burden of proof onto them AND doing it in a way that suggests you're just trying to help if it's listened to for QC purposes. I dunno, I've only used it a couple of times on really pushy types and face-to-face, but it's worked both times

[Sliceanddice]

i worked for a medicare insurance company i got all that all the time

[MoonCat]

I'm too tired to look it up right now, but I've had to research HIPAA* for stuff going on with a co-worker. I'm fairly sure that it does not say anything about giving info to or about spouses to the other spouse. And yeah, she changed the deadline. If it was really that important, she'd have done it sooner.



*HIPAA laws apply to health care workers and very few others. Not sure how exactly it affects insurance workers but I'd take the word of the average insurance worker over that of someone who was trying to pull a fast one.

[Seanette]

Re: caller #2, if I remember my own stint in health insurance correctly, at least the company I worked for (I handled small business group coverage) allowed an insured, such as a spouse, to be dropped at any time, so I'm puzzled by the deadline to do so. Adding people is in a narrow timeframe (30 days from qualifying event or during open enrollment), but dropping is not.

I admit it's been a few years, so I don't know how much Obamacare might have changed that.

[mhkohne]

Re: caller #2, if I remember my own stint in health insurance correctly, at least the company I worked for (I handled small business group coverage) allowed an insured, such as a spouse, to be dropped at any time, so I'm puzzled by the deadline to do so. Adding people is in a narrow timeframe (30 days from qualifying event or during open enrollment), but dropping is not.

I admit it's been a few years, so I don't know how much Obamacare might have changed that.

I've had insurance that only allowed spouse changes during a limited window or major life event (marriage, divorce, birth, death, etc). That was a while ago, so I think it's just company or perhaps state variations.

[earl colby pottinger]

Exactly

"Rabble rabble rabble the law says so."

"I'm sorry, while my training here does include a good deal of information on that law, for obvious reasons, I'm not familiar with the passage your quoting. If you could point me towards that specific item of legislation, I'll see what can be done."

Always do this. It is amazing the number of people who say "It's the Law!" don't seem to realize that when laws are written down that they are also indexed. And if the law is about something that is not common life then THEY need to provide a reference that I can double check before I believe them.


And none of this nonsense where you expect me to do a ton of research to check your claims. Provide a citation or walk.

[earl colby pottinger]

I am also sure that most if not all companies give their employees a heads-up months ahead of time about any insurance changes. I know at GM a newsletter was sent out by the union months before the changes, and the computer store we had an all-person meeting about three months before our pension plans changed and when about two months before the health plan changes.

Note: In Canada the basic health care is from the government, this was an offer for supplemental insurance which you could take or not as your own personal choice.