T65 charged U65 rate?

[The Medicare Gal]

Hi there! I'm new here so if this has been asked before, please forgive me.
I have a client who is T65 and his birthday is on the 1st of the month. I enrolled him into a plan, and it was all set to go.

My assistant found out that his rate for the first month was more than double what I quoted. Upon further review I discovered that the carrier charges in this instance, the U65 rate until he reaches his birthday month.

The explanation was "The client has a choice to take their Medicare early in this instance, but could opt to take it the first of their birthday month so we charge them the U65 rate".

Has anyone ever run into this before?
And... am I correct in thinking this is BS? The client really doesn't have a choice right? If they did, then wouldn't they get an extra month to purchase a drug plan?

Help me out here, am I completely insane?

 

[B03hmer]

They shouldn't have accepted it to start early because it has to be active along side Medicare A and B. (The policy should have been set to start the month of his birthday.) Even if his Medicare was already active he would have to be on a u65 plan (plan A), original medicare, or an advantage plan, then the new plan you set should have had a start date of the birthday month. The company should have also caught this and asked you to fix it. I would contact them and have the coverage start on the correct date with the correct price.

Anyway welcome to Medicare sales.

 

[WCMason]

Hi there! I'm new here so if this has been asked before, please forgive me.
I have a client who is T65 and his birthday is on the 1st of the month. I enrolled him into a plan, and it was all set to go.

My assistant found out that his rate for the first month was more than double what I quoted. Upon further review I discovered that the carrier charges in this instance, the U65 rate until he reaches his birthday month.

The explanation was "The client has a choice to take their Medicare early in this instance, but could opt to take it the first of their birthday month so we charge them the U65 rate".

Has anyone ever run into this before?
And... am I correct in thinking this is BS? The client really doesn't have a choice right? If they did, then wouldn't they get an extra month to purchase a drug plan?

Help me out here, am I completely insane?

You’re not insane.

This explanation: "The client has a choice to take their Medicare early in this instance, but could opt to take it the first of their birthday month so we charge them the U65 rate” however, is insane.

The carrier quoting tool has a glitch. I’d get the case escalated or find another carrier. People born on the first of a month get Medicare a month earlier than most, but do not get financially punished by Medigap carriers for that bonus month.

 

[wvguy1807]

I would like to know what carrier did this.

 

[Bevo]

Yes what carrier was it? We've enrolled thousands of T65 6 months prior and this has never happened once.

 

[B03hmer]

Yes please let us know the carrier.

I believe your referring to the start date not enrollment. It sounds like she selected a month early start date. The carrier should have caught it but all plans that are 65+ can't start until the 65th birthday. They for some reason didn't catch the start date and then charged a u65 what I can only assume is plan A (only under 65 plan that I know of) amount.

 

[WCMason]

Yes please let us know the carrier.

I believe your referring to the start date not enrollment. It sounds like she selected a month early start date. The carrier should have caught it but all plans that are 65+ can't start until the 65th birthday. They for some reason didn't catch the start date and then charged a u65 what I can only assume is plan A (only under 65 plan that I know of) amount.

She did not select a month early start date and Medigap plans can start prior to the 65th birthday.

She selected the correct start date for someone born on the 1st day of a month who gets to start her plans the first day of the month before she turns 65. This is a carrier error, not a mistaken effective date by the agent or applicant.

 

[vic120]

I find with some carriers when you call you sometimes speak to an underqualified customer service rep and get missinfo, I would escalate, This should not be I have enrolled T65 1st of month bday prior month effective without issue.

It would really help to know which carrier, If its AARP it has to be escalated, many others you can ask to speak with the manager

If I had got pushback I might even let them know the client is thinking about making an official complaint

But again how I would go about fixing would depend on carrier

 

[B03hmer]

She did not select a month early start date and Medigap plans can start prior to the 65th birthday.

She selected the correct start date for someone born on the 1st day of a month who gets to start her plans the first day of the month before she turns 65. This is a carrier error, not a mistaken effective date by the agent or applicant.

Ahh yes sorry I haven't done one recently and thanks for the correction.

But yes call the carrier and get it corrected

 

[The Medicare Gal]

Hi Everyone!

I was actually able to "get an exception" yesterday afternoon before I posted. This is a California carrier, and has the lowest rates for T65 in my town (which BTW has a 46% MAPD penetration rate).

It's interesting to see all the different views on this. Thanks for letting me vent, I was pretty teed off that I even had to get an exception.

To respond to some of your questions and comments: This was a Plan F, (which I still sell a lot of because we have the birthday rule here, so I don't worry that much about rate increases after 2020)

Where I live all the carriers offer "under 65" Plan F but they are usually double or more the price of a 65 year old. I believe that California has a law that requires the carriers to provide coverage to "U65".

For those of you who think I've never written a 1st of the month birthday, rest assured that I did not make a mistake, I'm not new to Medicare, only this Forum. I wish I would have found this Forum when I WAS new, as it would have saved me some grey hairs I've picked up.

Since I practice mostly in California, and have previously only gotten non-resident licenses when I have a referral or someone moves, I'll probably have questions in the future as to what is California law and what is national law, so I'm really glad to be here.

For everyone that asked the name of the company, I'm sorry but at this time I'm not going to say it publicly just in case my carrier representative is in this forum. I do quite a bit of business with them and I don't want to burn any bridges. She got me the exception, just in the nick of time.

But I'll give you a hint, they are broker only and they do not work with FMOs, IMOs, etc. they only go direct.

If you don't do business in California, you probably have never heard of the company anyway, so don't worry, it won't happen to you.

As I get to know all of you in the future, I may be more forthcoming with company names, but for now I'd like to get to know you first.

Thanks for everyone who chimed in. I will be a lot more careful with my T65s with a first of the month birthday in the future!