4 ms·
> I don’t understand your comment. If the company is large it is likely self-funded, so it is taking on the risk, whether they are doing it in house or hiring a
by mieseratte 7y ago
> I don’t understand your comment. If the company is large it is likely self-funded, so it is taking on the risk, whether they are doing it in house or hiring a benefits consultant to do it for them.
Because they partner with a larger provider for the doctor / hospital / pharmacy networks and specialist support. This is a very common pattern insofar as I'm aware.
Has your experience differed?
- tempsy 7y agoThe network of providers available to you is a separate issue from whether your company manages the risk or an insurance company does. Didn’t mention anything about provider networks.
- mieseratte 7y ago> The network of providers available to you is a separate issue from whether your company manages the risk or an insurance company does What I'm saying is, my company manages the risk. We partner with a larger insurer company that provides A) network B) specialists for the roles you've claimed a company would normally hire. Because of this we don't have inside actuaries and specialists and such. As a result, there is no inside man looking at my claims. I will ask for for a third time, have you experience that differs here?
- tempsy 7y agoWhat you’ve described is the self-insurance model for large companies. That doesn’t conflict with any of my earlier comments. Companies can decide whether they want to administer it internally or use a consultant. You seem to believe that just because a company uses a consultant that no one in HR or Finance or management would be privy to viewing your claims history via the consultant? Not sure what would lead you to believe that. Just because your company is outsourcing the task doesn’t mean it is shielded from the data.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]