ST Alpha - "there's more.. women could have to pay in advance, then submit a claim with proof of a non-pregnancy-related need; and they can be charged a fee." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 165

In response to "I'll try to c&P the actual language" by spamlet

there's more.. women could have to pay in advance, then submit a claim with proof of a non-pregnancy-related need; and they can be charged a fee.

Posted by b. (aka starrynit) Mar 13 '12, 14:31

An insurer, EMPLOYER,
27 SPONSOR, ISSUER OR OTHER ENTITY OFFERING THE POLICY may STATE RELIGIOUS
28 BELIEFS IN ITS AFFIDAVIT THAT require the insured to first pay for the
29 prescription and then submit a claim to the insurer along with evidence that
30 the prescription is for a noncontraceptive purpose NOT IN WHOLE OR IN PART
31 FOR A PURPOSE COVERED BY THE OBJECTION. An insurer may charge an
32 administrative fee for handling these claims.

Responses:

Actually, that's pro-woman. They could just say no contraceptive medicine would be paid for no matter the reason. - spamlet Mar 13, 14:32 3
- it's pro some women, except for the ridiculousness of the hoop-jumping being required for women with common medical conditions. - b. Mar 13, 14:35
- ok, explain this - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:34
- well, they are. The exception is for a noncontraceptive medicine. -- nm - loosilu Mar 13, 14:33
ayup -- nm - tRuMaN Mar 13, 14:32

Post a message top

there's more.. women could have to pay in advance, then submit a claim with proof of a non-pregnancy-related need; and they can be charged a fee.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.