What gives me pause is that on Kyle's site, he says, "Avera still holds the position that they are not an ideal choice for RVers whom travel outside of the SD region extensively."
Why do they say that if they really do provide in-network coverage for routine care all over the country? It's exactly what those people need. Why deny it?
It sounds like they really don't want to insure fulltimers, and if that's the case, how might that manifest itself some time in the future?
Usually, I'm a big fan of asking forgiveness instead of permission, but when it comes to health insurance, I'm worried that I wouldn't find out there was an issue until a big claim gets denied.
Avera's website shows a network that includes only South Dakota and the surrounding areas, and a couple of other places. And no mention whatsoever of the PHCS MultiPlan network. The website and the brochure for individual insurance both say, "Our large network means you will likely find a doctor you know. Regardless where you travel, emergencies are treated with in-network benefits."
Why don't they say, "Regardless of where you travel, the PHCS MultiPlan will give you access to in-network benefits" if that really is the case? Why do they specify "emergencies" if it's not actually limited to emergencies?
I just wish they'd simply issue something in writing that says routine care is covered under the PHCS MultiPlan network the same as it would be under Avera's own network.
I know there aren't that many fulltimers who are under 65, but since South Dakota could otherwise be a good choice for them, you'd think Avera would be actively courting that market instead of claiming they aren't a good choice for fulltimers. It's just strange.
