[be-baw]

I don’t see the problem here. If an employee’s spouse gets health insurance from her job, why should her hubby’s insurance provide redundent coverage?

[rabidralph]

I think the way it works is that the spouse has the option to be covered by the husband's/wife's plan if that spouse's job's coverage isn't as good as the other spouses. So what UVa and others are saying is that if the working spouse has a health plan available at his/her job, then he/she will have to enroll in that health plan because UVa is dropping them.

My company has started a dependent audit (done by an outside company) where employees with dependents have to verify that they are, in fact, legally entitled to call that child or live-in their dependent and they are eligible for coverage.

[randita]

If an employee’s spouse gets health insurance from her job, why should her hubby’s insurance provide redundent coverage?

There may be some advantages for one spouse to stay on the other spouse's policy. 1) the UVa plan may offer better benefits (cheap office visits, RX, eyecare, dental care, etc.) or 2) by opting out of the plan, the spouse who doesn't work at UVa may receive the commensurate cost of the plan as wages.

There may be other advantages, but those are the two I can think of off the bat.

[Wyatt's Torch]

It’s not redundant. The spouse doesn’t also pay for their coverage. For example my wife’s employer offers health insurance but my plan for a family is cheaper so we use my company’s and don’t pay a dime for hers.