Blues

While camping can be an effective way to stay away from people, that's not the only consideration. Limiting the number of places where people can stay reduces the number of people who come to an area, which reduces the pressure on the resources in the area, and it can be especially helpful to do so at a time when resources are already being stretched.

Or it's been going on all this time and nothing has changed. As I said, I don't have a lot of faith in the site you linked to. It used to have really valuable information for fulltimers looking for health insurance. But not any more. The thing is, the intent of the Affordable Care Act is to provide access to healthcare for all Americans. And when there is ambiguity in a law, you look at the intent of the law to help resolve the ambiguity. The focus on "residence" in the law makes things very clear for the vast majority of people. But there are exceptions. For people with two houses they alternate between seasonally, the FAQ explains how the ACA works for them, including that they will qualify for a SEP when they go to a different residence. However it actually advises them that they should consider whether they would benefit more from enrolling in a plan that offers a national provider network or out-of-network coverage instead. Unfortunately, the FAQ doesn't address traveling fulltimers. But if someone who is away from a residence for long periods of time because he's at his other house is told to consider getting a plan with a nationwide network instead of changing plans when he changes residences, that's a pretty good basis for inferring that the same applies to a traveling fulltimer, who has many residences--he could consider whether he would benefit more from enrolling in a plan that offers a national provider network than changing his insurance every time he moves. Furthermore, it's not crystal clear a traveling fulltimer even could opt to enroll in a new plan every time he gets to a new place, even assuming it were actually possible (it's not, because of timing issues). But assuming it were possible, the FAQ says a person who is in a new location without an intent to reside there doesn't qualify for a permanent move SEP, and that includes people who are there "for personal pleasure." So it's not a matter of where you physically are, because people who are somewhere for personal pleasure are definitely physically there, but still don't qualify for a permanent move SEP. So being somewhere for pleasure without the intent to remain there, which describes pretty much every place a traveling fulltimer spends the night, isn't the proper place to get insurance. The guiding principle is not "Will I get caught?" It's "Where else can I get insurance besides my domicile?" The answer to that is, "Nowhere else." And the response to that has pivoted to the legitimacy of the domicile. But this is the same domicile that is used for driver's license, vehicle registration, and vehicle insurance. It's good enough for those, but not health insurance, even though there's a law whose intent is to see that every American has access to health care? That doesn't make sense.

This is old news. Here's a thread from 2014 about South Dakota health insurers disenrolling people who use a mail service: https://www.rvnetwork.com/topic/111570-avera-health-insurance/ South Dakota insurers have made it clear for years that they don't want to insure fulltimer RVers. And fulltime RVers shouldn't want to have insurance in South Dakota anyway, because even if it's a PPO, the network is local only (like many many other PPOs). I can't imagine why a traveling fulltimer who's bothering to buy insurance (it's not required any more) would get a policy that doesn't work for his lifestyle. Or actually, it's possible he just sees "PPO" and assumes (wrongly) that it provides access to a nationwide network. But I'll be honest--I'm not impressed with RVer Insurance (the site you linked to). Here's a post I wrote last year about the company that now owns it: https://www.rvnetwork.com/topic/138198-rver-insurance-exchange-health-insurance/?do=findComment&comment=1036468 And it appears not much has changed. When Kyle Henson had the site, he was definitely selling stuff but also was a good source of information for fulltimers trying to navigate the landscape when South Dakota was becoming hostile for health insurance, and later when Blue Cross PPO pulled out of Texas. Now the site is pretty much just a pitch to sell "alternatives to ACA plans," as they call them, which are indemnity plans that are very often confused with insurance. And by the way, indemnity plans can be purchased any time during the year, and not just during open enrollment. And they are subject to medical underwriting and exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Somehow those details got left off that page.

Oh, when I said "plan," I meant a particular policy within a plan. Like don't all Plan F policies provide the same coverage, and the only difference is the company and the premium? And why would the company matter, if the policy benefit is paying whatever portion Medicare doesn't cover? What would make one company better than another if they're all required to do the same thing?

What types of ailments were they asking about? I've wondered why anyone would choose anything other than cheapest one, if the benefits are identical. But then I learned about the three different ways the companies can set premiums, and it's possible that an attained-age rated policy would be cheap at initial enrollment, but the premiums will increase as he ages, and it might become cheaper to switch to a plan whose premiums are community based. But at that point, he has to apply for acceptance, so there's some risk. I just recently found out about medical underwriting once the initial enrollment period has passed, and haven't run across anything that explains the types of conditions that would lead to rejection. That's why I'm asking.

A heart attack is clearly an emergency, and I would expect that to be covered 1,500 miles away, regardless of the type of plan. The rub for traveling fulltimers, and what makes many Advantage plans unsuitable for them, is having to be in a certain area for all non-emergency care. That can work for some people's travel style, but for some, the whole idea behind fulltiming is not being tied to a certain area. And while routine care can be planned in advance, things can happen that aren't emergencies like a heart attack but nevertheless require treatment, and won't be covered. What's the name of the plan?

As far back as I can remember, Florida Blue plans were EPO and not PPO. When searching for plans, the only two filters for network were HMO and EPO. I've never been really clear on the difference between an EPO and a PPO. Neither requires referrals to specialists. I saw some descriptions that say EPOs sometimes require you to designate a primary care physician, but Florida Blue EPOs don't. I've also seen some explanations that EPOs don't cover out-of-network care, but Florida Blue plans do, albeit with a separate deductible and out-of-pocket limit. But look at this Summary of Benefits for a Florida Blue EPO plan, starting on the second page where it lists the coverage for in-network and out-of-network care. Lots of 50% coinsurance, but at least it's something, and it has a out-of-pocket limit. Compare that to an EPO Ambetter plan in Florida, which says "Not covered" in the "out-of-network" column for everything but emergencies. So Florida Blue EPO plans don't require referrals, don't require you to designate a primary care physician, and do have out-of-network coverage. I''m sure there's some reason they're considered EPOs and not PPOs, but functionally, I can't see a difference.

You probably aren't searching correctly. This happened in a thread on another forum, too, where someone claimed there were no in-network hospitals in New York City for Florida Blue subscribers, but I found 160 of them within a 25-mile radius. I think that person's search technique was faulty, and no wonder, because it IS confusing. Anyway, if you're on the "Find a Doctor" page of the Florida Blue website, if you're looking for providers outside Florida, don't use the big search boxes in the middle of the page. My experience is that those find only doctors in the Florida Blue network, which is limited mainly to Florida (and is different even in Florida depending on whether you're looking at a Blue Options or a Blue Select plan). To get providers outside the state, scroll down to Other Provider Services farther down on the left side, and click on Doctors and Hospitals Nationally. That will take you to a BCBS provider finder. There, you can enter your location and the plan. I'm not sure what the difference is between the three Blue Card plans, and I know that if you pick Florida Blue as the plan, you get lots of out-of-state providers, but for some reason not as many as if you put in the three-letter prefix from the member number for a Florida Blue plan. I would suggest that you look at this post and the ones after it. https://www.irv2.com/forums/f92/florida-aca-for-use-around-the-country-513716-4.html#post5974835 The issue is what is the difference is between Florida Blue's Blue Select and Blue Options plans, both when someone is in Florida and when someone is outside Florida, and some answers are being gleaned through gruntwork.

Do you have a source for this statement? Or information about instances where this refusal has occurred? The tip for fulltimers who domicile in Florida (like the OP) is to get a Florida Blue EPO plan because of their access to the Blue Cross nationwide network when outside Florida. These EPO plans don't require you to designate a primary care physician, so that's not an issue. And I've never heard of anyone having claims denied because they were outside the coverage area. Or did I miss it? In fact, I'm fuzzy on this because it was quite a while back, but there was a woman who was a solo fulltimer who kept a blog. She did a quickie Florida domicile change and got Florida Blue insurance and ended up needing a LOT of healthcare and eventually died from whatever it was she had, and my recollection is that she wasn't in Florida for any of it and Florida Blue covered all of it without a peep. Obviously just because she didn't have a problem doesn't mean other people won't, but at least it's an actual situation that played out, and not just speculation on how things might go. And if people were having problems using their Florida Blue insurance as fulltimers traveling around, I'm positive that we'd all be hearing about it, and there's been nothing that I've noticed.

GreyDawg appears to be a fulltimer, and most Advantage plans don't work well for fulltimers because they have only local networks. But maybe yours does? If so, what state and what plan? Do tell! What did you find out about undergoing medical underwriting for a supplement if you change plans because you move to a different state? I would guess that the answer is "yes" because my understanding is that guaranteed issue applies only during the initial enrollment period, but I'm like you and just now wading into Medicare, which I agree is more convoluted than Obamacare. Also, did you find a place to easily compare the one million supplement plans?

What state and what HMO? I've found that even if a company operates in several states, its HMO networks remain separate.

Boy, I don't know. They say South Dakota is a smart choice for people who need health insurance, and that's simply not the case. And they barely touch on Medicare, and don't mention Medicare Advantage at all, which is where fulltimers could trip up because Advantage plans usually don't emphasize that they usually are limited to local networks.

I thought one of the justifications (or even the main justification) for letting people vote where they don't live is that it's the only way for them to vote in national elections, like for president. There is no national race in this election. As for why Escapees didn't notify people of this election, perhaps it has to do with this, from a previous discussion: In this election, the only ballot items for Polk County residents were amendments to the Texas Constitution, and I think it could be argued that people who don't actually live in Texas shouldn't be voting on the Texas Constitution, regardless of how well informed they are.

To make sure you have the proper coverage, look in the breakdown of coverages for a separate premium for "fulltimer's personal liability" or something along those lines. A few years ago, I called Geico for a quote for a fulltimer's policy. The Geico employees even answered the phone with something about how they specialize in fulltimer RV insurance. I got the quote, which was just a total number. I asked for a breakdown--I'm not sure what it's called, but it shows the various types of coverage I'm getting (like liability, comprehensive, medical payments), along with a premium and any applicable deductible for each element. I keep a spreadsheet of insurance quotes, and when I was entering this one, I noticed there wasn't a listing for fulltimer anything (it usually runs about $100/year for me). So I called back to get that added, and the guy said they didn't offer that type of coverage, and I said then it's not a fulltimer policy, and he said it was, because it covered use of the RV 365 days a year. We went back and forth, and he eventually said Texas was the only state where they didn't offer the fulltimer's personal liability; I don't know if that was true or not. These days, people are reporting getting true fulltimer coverage in Texas from Geico, so maybe they can offer it now. And who knows if Texas really was the only state where you couldn't get it. The Geico people even answered the phone by saying they are specialists or experts or something in fulltimer RV insurance, and I wonder how many people had the policy they tried to sell me without realizing it didn't have the crucial element to make it a fulltimer's policy. I didn't notice until there was a cell on my spreadsheet to fill in, and I didn't have a number. The bottom line is that anybody wanting a true fulltimer policy--with fulltimer's personal liability to replace what they had with homeowner's or renter's insurance-- needs to verify, with their own eyes, that it includes the fulltimer's personal liability. That goes for everybody, even those who have had a claim approved, if the claim was for something that's not part of fulltimer's personal liability. The policy may cover you if you fulltime, but that doesn't mean it includes everything a fulltimer would want in a policy. Definitely don't rely on anybody's assertion that it's fulltimer coverage, and check it yourself--all you have to do is verify that fulltimer's personal liability is on the breakdown.

But are all of Connecticut's premiums age-dependent? Because if a policy's premium is community rated, the premium is the same for everyone, regardless of age, and won't go up because of your age. Of course, it can still go up "because of inflation and other factors," which kind of puts it in the same field as the advice to predict your future healthcare needs when picking a plan you may not be able to change. But at a given moment in time, everybody is paying the same premium regardless of age. I'm guessing it changes every year as the mix of people in the plan changes, but that's not really clear. Is that one of the "other factors" that can affect the premium? And for the record, there are also "issue-age-rated" policies, which vary depending on the age you were when you first got the policy and don't go up as you age (but can still go up "because of inflation and other factors"). And we have "attained-age-rated" premiums, which do depend on your age, and may start out cheap but will go up as you get older (in addition to going up "because of inflation and other factors"). Do people actually know how the premium for the supplement they choose is set? Because I think it would be important to know if your premium is going to change as you get older (as most people would expect), or it's actually not going to change (issue-age-rated), or any change will be dependent on the general health of the people in their area.

I did see that footnote. Are you thinking it means that Plan A is only for the disabled (i.e. people who aren't yet 65 but qualify for Medicare because they're disabled)? I don't think that's the case. A government Medicare website says: https://medicare.com/medicare-supplement/what-is-medicare-supplemental-insurance/ I think the "Plans for Disabled" footnote you quoted is describing which plans must be made available to the disabled, and not plans that are available only to the disabled. It says that all companies must offer a Plan A, and the Plan A they offer must be available to people over 65 as well as people who qualify because of their disability and not their age. Companies can choose to offer a Plan B and/or a Plan C. They don't have to offer a Plan B or a Plan C (unlike Plan A, which they are required to offer), but any Plan B or Plan C they choose to offer must be made available to people who qualify for Medicare because of their disability, and can't be restricted to people who are 65 and over. And you cut off the last part of the footnote. It's not "However, Plan C is only available to disabled." It's "However, Plan C is only available to disabled individuals who become eligible for Medicare prior to 1/1/20." That's not really necessary, because the chart has a section called "Only available to those eligible for Medicare prior to 2020," and Plan C is in that section. So it applies to everyone who has Plan C, whether eligible for Medicare because of age or disability. I'm guessing since they had a footnote talking about which plans are available for the disabled, they figured they'd put this qualification in there for the sake of completeness.

Look at the Colonial Penn plans on that site. The premium for Plan A (why oh why do they use letters for plans when they were already using letters for the parts of Medicare????) is $1,519.42 per month, which is $18,000 per year. Why would someone choose get that instead of that same company's high deductible Plan G, where the premium is $66 per month and there's a deductible of $2,370, and once that deductible is met, the plan pays 100% of "covered services" for the rest of the year? Is the "covered services" a gotcha? Seems to me the total exposure of the high-deductible Plan G is $3,162 per year ($792 in premiums plus $2,370 in deductible), compared to $18,000 per year for the Plan A (assuming the premium is all you have to pay). Or for that matter, Colonial Penn has two types of Plan G--regular and high deductible. The regular Plan G is $630 per month. A year's worth of premiums is $7,560, while the high deductible version of that plan is $3,162 for a year's worth of premiums plus the deductible, after which the plan pays 100%. Why choose the non-high deductible version? And if plans are standardized, why are the premiums so different? For Plan A, they range from $204.17 up to $1,519.42, depending on the company.

She said she's getting her insurance through the "Health Marketplace", which I assume is healthcare.gov. There are currently no Texas plans on the Marketplace that provide access to a nationwide network. And even the EPO or PPO plans on the Marketplace might have a network that covers only a certain region of Texas, and not the whole state, never mind other states. There might be companies that offer policies that offer access to a nationwide network via policies that aren't sold on the Marketplace, but I've never heard of anyone who actually knows of one. I suppose you'd have to just start calling every insurance company you can think of and ask, and hope the person you're talking to understands what you're asking. And good luck getting a look at a policy before buying the insurance. I've found that the most you can do is navigate the provider network on a company's website, and hope that the general information you get for who's in network will be applicable to the particular policy you're planning to buy.

Okay, this is a surprise: medical underwriting, a/k/a pre-existing condition exclusions. The over 100-page-long Medicare and You "brochure" doesn't mention underwriting at all, and mentions pre-existing conditions only to say that you can join an Advanage plan even if you have a pre-existing condition, but nothing about pre-existing conditions when it comes to Medigap policies. Which makes me suspicious. The merely 50-page-long "Choosing a Medigap Policy" guide says that if you're in your initial Medigap open enrollment period (when you're turning 65), an insurance company can't refuse to sell you a Medigap policy, can't charge you more than they'd charge someone with no health problems, and can't make you wait to start coverage. Which tells me they CAN do all of those things at any other time. Denials, rate increases, and exclusions based on pre-existing conditions in insurance for old people. The guide says the best time to buy a Medigap policy is during that initial open enrollment period, presumably to take advantage of the one time they can't subject you to medical underwriting. But how to choose? The brochure helpfully says, "Think about your current and future health care needs when deciding which benefits you want because you might not be able to switch Medigap policies later." Who the hell knows what their future health care needs will be? People who are healthy and choose high-deductible plans because they don't currently need a lot of health care--have they screwed themselves if/when they do get sick, because they can't change to a plan that works better not only for sick people, but for people who are sick in a particular way? I think the whole drug plan thing is ridiculous, where you enter the drugs you're currently taking and pick a plan based on those, even though it's possible that plan will be HORRIBLE for the very expensive drug you're prescribed on March 15th and will be taking for six months. But at least you CAN change once a year, right? But it sounds like if you want to go the Original Medicare route plus a Medigap (supplement) policy, you'd better sign up from the beginning, and you'd better sign up for the one you want to keep for the rest of your life because if you get sick and want to change, whatever it is you're sick with can be used to deny you a new policy. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding all of this.

Well, I can't "remember" it because I didn't know it in the first place. 😀 The website I was looking at (the one I linked to) is about premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance, but didn't mention the 20% coinsurance for Part B at all. The site discusses the most recent changes in the premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance, and maybe since the 20% coinsurance didn't change they didn't feel the need to mention it, but I think they should have, because you don't know what you don't know. They could have just had a little thing in there that said the 20% coinsurance for Part B is not changing, which would tip people off that there is a 20% coinsurance for Part B. Gah.

Okay, I found a place that says: https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11219-Understanding-Medicare-Part-C-D.pdf This must be what I was remembering. Now I just have to figure out what it means. Like once you're on an Advantage plan more than a year after you become eligible for Medicare, you can never enroll in Original Medicare? That same document says that during the October 15 - December enrollment period: And from January 1 - March 31 (Medicare Advantage open enrollment): So you can go from Advantage to Original, but it says "back to Original Medicare" and "return to Original Medicare," which to me means you have to have been on Original Medicare at some point, if you're going back it or returning to it. So if you sign up for an Advantage plan when you first enroll, you can't "go back" to Original Medicare because you were never on it. However, in the part I quoted for initial enrollment, it says "go back to Original Medicare," but a person who signs up for an Advantage plan as his initial enrollment won't ever have been on Original Medicare, so in this case, the "go back" can't mean what "go back" usually means, and maybe it doesn't mean what it usually means in the other examples, either, even though it would be possible to require a person to have been on Original Medicare at some point in order to leave an Advantage plan. This is what I'm talking about when I respond to people who cry, "Medicare for all!" with "Watch out what you ask for." Wouldn't all of Dave's doctor visits be covered by the $203 Part B annual deductible? And isn't testing covered by Part B, and at most subject to the $203 annual deductible? So he wouldn't be out of pocket for any more than anybody else as long as he stays out of the hospital, even though he goes to the doctor and gets tests all the time. Or am I misunderstanding the Part B deductible?

Thanks for starting this thread, GlennWest. I'll be eligible for Medicare in a few months and, like you, don't have any prescriptions. I've read a lot of discussions about Medicare but never knew about the penalty that comes from not signing up for Part D from the beginning. I probably would have signed up for it anyway, but it's good to know the long-term ramifications if I decided not to. I also thought getting a supplement was pretty much a given, but now I find out it's not, especially for a person like me who rarely goes to the doctor. I'd like to be one of those Medicare people who never see a bill, but not if it costs me more money. Here's what I think, and please correct me where I'm wrong: Medicare Part A covers hospitalization, and Medicare Part B covers outpatient services. There's no premium for Part A if you have 40 quarters of eligible employment (most people meet this), and the premium for Part B is $148.50/month for most people. Both Part A and Part B have deductibles, which people either pay out of pocket for (like traditional major medical insurance), or buy a supplement (medi-gap) that covers those deductibles (and results in never seeing a bill for services). The annual deductible for Part B (outpatient services) is $203, apparently regardless of how many doctor visits you have. That's almost nothing. The deductible for Part A (hospitalizations) is different because it applies to each hospital stay, and depends on the length of the stay. For a stay of 60 days or less, the deductible is only $1,484 total. But after 60 days, it jumps significantly, to $371 per day for days 61-90, and even more after that. Is that what most people who get a supplement are insuring against (assuming they think about it at all, and don't just do it because everybody thinks you should, or because a salesman talks them into it)? I don't think I'd insure against a $203 Part B deductible, or even a $1,484 Part A deductible, but things get much more interesting at $12,500 for a 90-day stay. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2021-medicare-parts-b-premiums-and-deductibles Then there are Medicare Advantage plans, which have their own issues but there are some plans out there that will work for a traveling fulltimer. For some of these plans, you don't have to pay the $148/month premium, which is enticing for someone who doesn't go to the doctor regularly. But--I swear I remember that there are some plans out there, and I'm not sure whether it's supplements or Advantage, that you have to medically qualify for. And I'm remembering some provision that you can try a plan and if you don't like it you can get back on it within a year or something, without having to qualify, but can't remember which type of plan it was. I don't want to make a mistake by signing up for a certain plan, and inadvertently limiting what I can do in the future. Like with the Part D--not signing up because I don't currently take any medications, only to find out I'm going to pay a lifetime penalty for that if I do sign up in the future. So if I don't get a supplement when I first sign up for Medicare, can I get a either a supplement or an Advantage plan during the next open enrollment, no questions asked? Or if I sign up for a supplement, can I switch to an Advantage plan during the next open enrollment, no questions asked? Or if I sign up for an Advantage plan, can I switch to a supplement during the next open enrollment, no questions asked? It's not unlike getting the Part D coverage--every year, you put in what drugs you take, and it spits out which plan is the cheapest for you. For people who require very little medical care, you get whatever is cheapest (possibly an Advantage plan that has a nationwide network and a $0 premium) for a year, and see how things go and whether you're going to want more traditional coverage because your health has changed. But that works only if, like Part D plans, you can just switch, without having to medically qualify.

While Campanda and RV Share tend to agree (except in the case of Michigan--RV Share doesn't mention the R endorsement), Outdoorsy differs with them on six of the 17 states listed as needing something other than a regular driver's license: Arkansas, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, and Washington, DC. Outdoorsy also cited Indiana (in addition to the 17) as requiring a CDL for over 45,000 pounds, while the other two say Indiana doesn't require any special licensing for RVs. And while Campanda and RV Share say Wisconsin requires a special license for over 45 feet, Outdoorsy says it's for 45,000 pounds. But even agreement among websites like these doesn't mean anything because websites get their information from other websites all the time, and there's nothing that requires them to verify the information themselves before putting it out there, never mind cite where they got their information. In the case of something involving a law, like the class of driver's license required, there will always be a statute or administrative rule that is the true authority. It's one of the few times on the internet when you CAN get to the real truth, instead of just relying on people's statements. And by the way, just because a website cites a particular statute, always look it up yourself. It might be just to the Transportation Code in general, for example, and not to the specific provision that says what the website is saying the law is. FWIW, it's not an RR endorsement--it's an R endorsement for a recreational double. It's sometimes referred to as a recreational double R, but that's not the same as recreational RR. I verified by reading the statutes and administrative code that one of these does not require a CDL. I hate doing legal research on a computer so I did just the one, which is still apparently more than all three of these websites did in this case. But by taking the easy way, you're spreading misinformation. As I pointed out above, they're not all three pretty much in agreement, so it's obvious that some of them have to be wrong. And even if they were all in agreement, that still doesn't mean what they're saying is true.

The thread title has "fulltime" in it, so presumably the OP doesn't have a homeowners insurance carrier. I have fulltimer coverage through Progressive (in Texas), and the last time I got quotes, it was cheaper going through a broker than going to Progressive directly. So you might try a broker who specializes in fulltimer insurance, who also has the advantage of being able to give you quotes from more than just one insurance company. I've never tried it using a theoretical vehicle, though. Where did you hear that? There are only a few companies that offer fulltimer coverage at all, and if they're among the "many" who will no longer insure RVs over 36 feet, fulltimers are going to be in a world of hurt.

Why are you looking at this plan? Do you already have coverage for sickness and hospitalization, and are just wanting to have your preventive care doctor visits covered? I ask because the WellMEC plan was concocted in order to avoid having to pay the penalty for not having health insurance. This is how the Escapees communications director described WellMEC: But now, there is no longer a penalty imposed on individuals for not having insurance, so what is the benefit of this plan? Most people want insurance that will protect them from financial disaster resulting from hospitalization for an accident or illness, and many traveling fulltimers say they're willing to pay cash for routine preventative care as they travel. If someone has only the WellMEC plan, they're getting the exact opposite--routine preventative care is covered, but anything relating to an illness or accident--the source of medical bankruptcies--is not. I suppose it might be a supplement to hospitalization insurance, but any ACA-compliant plan will already include all of the preventive care, so I wonder where it would fit in now that there's no penalty to be avoided. There's a previous thread about these plans. It started as a discussion of an indemnity plan offered by FMCA, but includes a discussion of WellMEC (this is where the quote above is from): https://www.rvnetwork.com/topic/131591-fmca-ppo-plan/?do=findComment&comment=950300