NAIFA OPPOSES SHORT-SIGHTED FEDERAL RULES ON SHORT-TERM HEALTH INSURANCE
The administration's final rules on short-term, limited-duration health insurance (STLDI) plans will restrict access to these policies that serve crucial needs of many American consumers. The plans, which have existed since the introduction of HIPAA-based rules nearly two decades ago, are designed to bridge the gap between comprehensive coverage options. They can be a great fit for those looking for individual coverage, waiting for the start of group plan enrollment, having gaps between different employment opportunities, or waiting for their next open enrollment opportunity.
STLDI plans can also serve many other individuals and populations, including those transitioning between jobs, those who have purposely reduced hours or taken unpaid leave and cannot afford or do not qualify for COBRA, newly retired people seeking a bridge to Medicare, Americans studying abroad, and individuals temporarily in
"The new, excessive limitations on short-term, limited-duration health plans do not reflect marketplace realities," said NAIFA CEO
The new rules by the Departments of
NAIFA agrees with portions of the rules that require health insurance companies to be clear and up front with consumers about the types of policies they are buying and those policies' benefits and limitations.
NAIFA also acknowledges the intentions of the Departments in aiming to eliminate STLDI coverage that closely resembles traditional individual insurance coverage. However, instead of imposing a drastic shift in available STLDI options, a middle-ground approach would be more useful in addressing these concerns while still protecting Americans.
The rules as they currently exist, however, do not serve the best interests of consumers. They fail to acknowledge the usefulness of STLDI plans for many American individuals and families who will now lack suitable health insurance options.
Concerns by NAIFA,
NAIFA has actively opposed proposed amendments to the rules that would change the income tax and employment tax treatment of money received through employment-based accident or health insurance paid without regard to the amount of incurred medical expenses and where the premiums or contributions for the coverage are paid on a pre-tax basis.
The proposed changes would raise taxes on individuals and businesses when the taxpayers are most vulnerable and can least afford it. Alternatively, and perhaps the more likely, the proposals would prompt employers to amend their plans to make employees pay for them on a pre-tax basis. Employers may even drop these supplemental benefit plans entirely. Any of these results runs completely contrary to the President's avowed efforts to reduce the cost of medical care for hardworking Americans. Moreover, such a result violates the President's promise not to tax Americans earning less than
Thanks to concerns expressed by NAIFA and others, the
* * *
Original text here: https://advocacy.naifa.org/news/naifa-opposes-short-sighted-federal-rules-on-short-term-health-insurance


Application deadline for FEMA assistance extended to May 8
Navigating Social Security's 'marriage penalty'
Advisor News
- Important year-end financial conversations every advisor must have
- What happens to insurance planning when a client retires early?
- Ask the right questions to turn clients into raving fans
- The first 5 years of your career could determine the next 50
- Your client’s $3 million portfolio doesn’t tell you their insurance needs
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- What lower interest rates mean to annuity payouts
- AM Best downgrades A-Cap insurers amid financial and regulatory troubles
- Lawsuit claims Delaware Life hid billions in insurer-linked investments
- AM Best to Deliver Presentation at 2026 ACLI Annual Conference
- Global Atlantic Announces Launch of ForeLifetime Income, a New Fixed Index Annuity
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News