We would like to set a policy where spouses who have coverage available through their own employer would not be eligible for coverage through our plan. Is this allowed? If it is, are you aware of guidelines on how to administer, i.e. what if the spouse's plan will not allow a mid-year change?

My husband's Local Union has done this, and needless to say it says alot about what the union is really made of. Everyone thinks the UNION is the way to go because everyone is treated fairly and the benefits are so GREAT. Doing this only proves the non union people right. It is not equal and the benefits are costly to the working people. The union is suppose to be for the working class, but when the working spouses' have to pay for the nonworking spouses', it sure sends out the message that the union is NO better than other working classes. :angry:

You would have to amend your plan language in order to do this, but we've seen many plans do this recently. We don't advise a complete lack of coverage. Our suggestion is usually to require the spouse to cover themselves as primary on their own employer's plan before they can be covered as secondary on their spouse's.

While I realize this is YEARS later, here are some comments.

1) You need to consider the other insurance has their own caveats. One would be pre-existing conditions. Another is never being able to be covered again. I was carried on my retired husbands plan. Under HIS plan if I ever go off I can never rejoin. So I would not ever have insurance again. Naturally this was hidden in the agreements and not well known.

2) My employer gave me $60 a month NOT to be on their plan. So that is another idea for you to get rid of both. They did require I provide proof of my coverage to opt out.

3) usually plans encourage a spouse having their own, by making the employee insurance say $60 a month versus adding a spouse at $147. Thus cost is $147 plus the $60.