Fred's CIGNA Scam

[UnconTROLLed]

To answer your question :

Our editors reviewed eight key areas: (1) Physical Workplace; (2) Work Atmosphere & Social; (3) Health, Financial & Family Benefits; (4) Vacation & Time Off; (5) Employee Communications; (6) Performance Management; (7) Training & Skills Development; and (8) Community Involvement.

And, I guess it's prestige to work for the top 100 , including Microsoft, Boeing, IBM, etc.
How they actually get thier data, I'm not sure.
Kinda like the UN selecting the best countries to live in.

I lived with a fedex girl, here at my own home, she did almost the same area I had my route.
She would have never switched to UPS. Money wasn't the thing. And actually, for her only being hired at making $17.02 from the start, was more money then myself after 18 mths ($15.00 start, $16.00 after 6 mths, $17.00 after 18mths, $19.00 after 24 mths, then finally $24.26 after 30 mths).
So, don't give me this crap of 35% lower wages.

She also had a nice truck with cd player/radio and a/c. And was always done after 8hrs work.

Top rate is close to $30/hr right now here in the U.S.

 

[Ricochet1a]

To answer your question :

Our editors reviewed eight key areas: (1) Physical Workplace; (2) Work Atmosphere & Social; (3) Health, Financial & Family Benefits; (4) Vacation & Time Off; (5) Employee Communications; (6) Performance Management; (7) Training & Skills Development; and (8) Community Involvement.

And, I guess it's prestige to work for the top 100 , including Microsoft, Boeing, IBM, etc.
How they actually get thier data, I'm not sure.
Kinda like the UN selecting the best countries to live in.

I lived with a fedex girl, here at my own home, she did almost the same area I had my route.
She would have never switched to UPS. Money wasn't the thing. And actually, for her only being hired at making $17.02 from the start, was more money then myself after 18 mths ($15.00 start, $16.00 after 6 mths, $17.00 after 18mths, $19.00 after 24 mths, then finally $24.26 after 30 mths).
So, don't give me this crap of 35% lower wages.

She also had a nice truck with cd player/radio and a/c. And was always done after 8hrs work.

Must have been nice for your gal to have a radio, air conditioner and always done after 8 hours. Doesn't sound like the FedEx I work for; but things may be a little different in Canada. By the way, you don't have a clue as to compensation rate differentials between UPS and FedEx in the U.S., so you might as well keep your "crap" to yourself.

Physical Workplace: 120 degree cargo area in the summer, faulty heater in the winter, yup, great workplace.

Work Atmosphere: Implicit Threats standard operating procedure, great workplace

Health, Financial and Family Benefits: Health Premiums that go up 10% annually, coverage that gets trimmed annually, Great place

Vacation and Time Off: Vacation Bid System that prevents anyone with under 5 years from getting any desirable time off and anyone with less than 10 years attempting to get a week off that they really want. No flexibility after bidding. If family has opportunity to meet, the FedEx employee is SOL if they don't already have vacation scheduled.

Employee Communications: GFT, how sweet it is. Couldn't get any better for us.

Performance Management: Don't have a clue about what they are talking about unless it is the performance review system within FedEx. I can't begin to explain what a joke it is.

Training & Skills Development: Couriers were forced to take routes without a single day or orientation on said route (ride along). Policy finally reversed when missed committment times began costing more than potential wage savings. Skills development is limited to regional engineers telling us to get an extra stop per hour and maintain 95% of monthly goal (with the extra stop per hour added in) or expect disciplinary action to be taken.

Community Involvement: FedEx maintains a clean image of itself in PR, but employees are forced to waive minimums or do menial tasks while making up the difference between time on road and minimum guaranteed hours.

As far as the UN selecting best countries to live in...

If you put an credibility in the UN, that says it all. Best socialist paradise is their criteria. Stow the UN.

Your wage structure in Canada must be different... It takes UPS drivers about 3 years to hit 29 USD. It takes 17 years for a FedEx Courier to hit 22.50 USD. You may want to do some more research before you start flinging your fecal material about the string; the wage differential is at least 35%. UPS drivers can net 90.000 a year, FedEx Couriers are doing well to net 50,000 and that is after being topped out.

 

[MrFedEx]

To answer your question :

Our editors reviewed eight key areas: (1) Physical Workplace; (2) Work Atmosphere & Social; (3) Health, Financial & Family Benefits; (4) Vacation & Time Off; (5) Employee Communications; (6) Performance Management; (7) Training & Skills Development; and (8) Community Involvement.

And, I guess it's prestige to work for the top 100 , including Microsoft, Boeing, IBM, etc.
How they actually get thier data, I'm not sure.
Kinda like the UN selecting the best countries to live in.

I lived with a fedex girl, here at my own home, she did almost the same area I had my route.
She would have never switched to UPS. Money wasn't the thing. And actually, for her only being hired at making $17.02 from the start, was more money then myself after 18 mths ($15.00 start, $16.00 after 6 mths, $17.00 after 18mths, $19.00 after 24 mths, then finally $24.26 after 30 mths).
So, don't give me this crap of 35% lower wages.

She also had a nice truck with cd player/radio and a/c. And was always done after 8hrs work.

FedEx Canada must be very different from the US version. Nobody in the US tops out after 30 months. The only FedEx vehicles that have CD players/radio/ and a/c are newer Express tractors, and the only reason they do is that these items are standard and it actually costs money to have them deleted. Courier vehicles seldom have a/c, none have radios or a CD player. In general, you have to live somewhere where it's really hot all the time to have air...like Phoenix. Some employees do work 8 hr days..others work 12 or more every day. It depends on where you are.

The 35% figure is about right. The guy who has the route next to me has 11 years in with FedEx and is an excellent employee who always has great reviews. He makes just over $19 per hour and doesn't know when he'll ever top-out.

The Fortune rating has always been a puzzler. I have over 20 years in at FedEx and have never known anyone who was polled about their job, nor have any of the hundreds of employees I know all over the FedEx system. They don't deserve to be rated that highly and the way FedEx meets the Fortune criteria is a mystery. The Community Service category is largely a result of managers, who are forced to do community service every month and through a PR machine that hypes everything charitable that FedEx does into a media event. "FedEx Cares" (their slogan) is a joke. There are very few hourly employees who feel like donating their time in the name of FedEx these days.

What you've posted might be true in Canada, but it isn't close to being valid in the US.

 

[MrFedEx]

Huh? Did you just make a pass at me?

I don't know what you are talking about but if you read the original post,the fragg is saying that Cigna is denying services,not major claims smart guy. Reading,humor,spelling,women and making sense is definitely not one of your strong points.

As usual, you're incorrect (surprise). I said nothing about major claims. CIGNA is currently denying claims (all claims) at a rate 32.4% above last year for the State of California and I would surmise that they are doing the same thing in other states too. You probably shouldn't be criticizing others for their spelling and reading skills. I'm guessing that you didn't do too well in either subject at Troll University.

 

[MrFedEx]

If you'd like to learn more about how CIGNA operates, Google the name "Wendell Potter", former VP of Public Relations at CIGNA. Is it really that hard to believe that FedEx makes money off this scheme and that CIGNA is being paid handsome incentives to deny claims and services? If you want to be dumb, go ahead. That's what FedEx wants...more morons who'll work their a** off for peanuts and never ask any questions. Apparently there isn't an idiot shortage among Express employees.

 

[FedEX 4 Life]

If you'd like to learn more about how CIGNA operates, Google the name "Wendell Potter", former VP of Public Relations at CIGNA. Is it really that hard to believe that FedEx makes money off this scheme and that CIGNA is being paid handsome incentives to deny claims and services? If you want to be dumb, go ahead. That's what FedEx wants...more morons who'll work their a** off for peanuts and never ask any questions. Apparently there isn't an idiot shortage among Express employees.

Keep those blinds peeled....

 

[quadro]

As many of you know, FedEx is self-insured. CIGNA only acts as the administrator of claims...FedEx pays the bills. Here's how the scam works. FedEx works out a deal with CIGNA in which CIGNA is paid a set amount per employee per year. We'll call this AMOUNT X. Fred, weasel that he is, knows he can make a bunch of money off this deal by charging employees AMOUNT Y, which are premium payments significantly over and above what CIGNA receives. Smith pockets the difference, which for a very large company like FedEx, means many millions of dollars.

The problem is that you are missing AMOUNT Z which is the amount that FedEx (via Cigna) pays the doctors, hospitals, etc.
Using your formula, sure there's a bunch of extra money but your math is wrong. Just look at any EOB and see how much you pay versus how much the doctor charged (even at the negotiated rate or whatever it's called). Who pays the difference between what you paid and what was charged?

To think that FedEx is making money off of the premiums assumes that the sum of all premiums is < the cost of all medical care submitted to Cigna for FedEx employees. Commons sense tells you that can't possibly be true.

 

[FedEX 4 Life]

The problem is that you are missing AMOUNT Z which is the amount that FedEx (via Cigna) pays the doctors, hospitals, etc.
Using your formula, sure there's a bunch of extra money but your math is wrong. Just look at any EOB and see how much you pay versus how much the doctor charged (even at the negotiated rate or whatever it's called). Who pays the difference between what you paid and what was charged?

To think that FedEx is making money off of the premiums assumes that the sum of all premiums is < the cost of all medical care submitted to Cigna for FedEx employees. Commons sense tells you that can't possibly be true.

agreed

 

[MrFedEx]

The problem is that you are missing AMOUNT Z which is the amount that FedEx (via Cigna) pays the doctors, hospitals, etc.
Using your formula, sure there's a bunch of extra money but your math is wrong. Just look at any EOB and see how much you pay versus how much the doctor charged (even at the negotiated rate or whatever it's called). Who pays the difference between what you paid and what was charged?

To think that FedEx is making money off of the premiums assumes that the sum of all premiums is < the cost of all medical care submitted to Cigna for FedEx employees. Commons sense tells you that can't possibly be true.

Sigh. AMOUNT Z, as you call it,is the payout, which FedEx and CIGNA both would like to see be as low as possible, hence the increase in denials. Common sense tells you that FedEx never wants to spend a dime they don't have to and that it would be more profitable for them to provide CIGNA an incentive to NOT pay your claim or make it such a hassle that you just pay for it out-of-pocket.

FedEx isn't the only company that does this. Most large employers are self-insured for the same reason. Consider how many employees FedEx has, our high premiums, co-pays, etc, and then also consider the reluctance of CIGNA to pay for almost any service you have performed. You must also remember the investment value of the money FedEx receives and what benefits they derive from that additional source of funds. They can invest it, draw interest on it etc.

 

[MrFedEx]

Sigh. AMOUNT Z, as you call it,is the payout, which FedEx and CIGNA both would like to see be as low as possible, hence the increase in denials. Common sense tells you that FedEx never wants to spend a dime they don't have to and that it would be more profitable for them to provide CIGNA an incentive to NOT pay your claim or make it such a hassle that you just pay for it out-of-pocket.

FedEx isn't the only company that does this. Most large employers are self-insured for the same reason. Consider how many employees FedEx has, our high premiums, co-pays, etc, and then also consider the reluctance of CIGNA to pay for almost any service you have performed. You must also remember the investment value of the money FedEx receives and what benefits they derive from that additional source of funds. They can invest it, draw interest on it etc.

Also, please consider high deductibles, CIGNA's constant insistence that providers are "out-of-network", even though they are listed in CIGNA's own literature, "over and above customary and prevalent fees" and all of the other devices they use to deny service.

Most Express employees are young enough where they don't run-up big medical charges. Why do you think there has been such a big push to get rid of senior employees who are much more likely to have serious health issues....especially work-related ones. This is how they keep medical costs down and make a profit off of the premiums. There is an incredible incentive for FedEx to do so and CIGNA is surely incentivized to participate.

Ever hear of the class action suit pending against FedEx for age discrimination? BPP was the means to try and get rid of older workers but the idea backfired and now FedEx is going to be paying-out another big settlement in the near future. Getting rid of the old-timers would have saved them big medical payouts by eliminating most of this high-risk employee group.

 

[quadro]

Sigh. AMOUNT Z, as you call it,is the payout,

Correct, but your initial claim omitted that amount and that is by far the most amount of money in this equation.

which FedEx and CIGNA both would like to see be as low as possible, hence the increase in denials. Common sense tells you that FedEx never wants to spend a dime they don't have to and that it would be more profitable for them to provide CIGNA an incentive to NOT pay your claim or make it such a hassle that you just pay for it out-of-pocket.

And just how many companies, individuals, etc, do you know that want to spend more than they have to for anything? Yes, there is a fine line between being fiscally responsible and being a cheapskate but to assume that they are putting peoples health and well-being at risk just to save a $ is quite an accusation.

FedEx isn't the only company that does this. Most large employers are self-insured for the same reason. Consider how many employees FedEx has, our high premiums, co-pays, etc, and then also consider the reluctance of CIGNA to pay for almost any service you have performed. You must also remember the investment value of the money FedEx receives and what benefits they derive from that additional source of funds. They can invest it, draw interest on it etc.

I think you'll find that even with the highest level of coverage, including dental and vision, and including full family coverage, premiums are still slightly less than average. Co-pays are about average, maybe a little higher for specialist visits.
Speaking from personal experience with a substantial number of claims, I can't think of one that has been denied. At least not after the fact. I've had some preauthorizations dictate a slightly different course of action to ensure that a claim wasn't denied but that was just doing due diligence on my part.
I've also had some claims that needed to be resubmitted because the provider submitted the claim incorrectly but that was neither Cigna's nor FedEx's fault.
Also keep in mind that the premiums are only about 12-17% of the cost of coverage. FedEx is paying the rest out of its own pocket (amount Z). Not sure why you would begrudge any company from trying to manage that. After all we are talking millions, if not billions, of $$

 

[quadro]

Also, please consider high deductibles, CIGNA's constant insistence that providers are "out-of-network", even though they are listed in CIGNA's own literature, "over and above customary and prevalent fees" and all of the other devices they use to deny service.

I only had the out-of-network thing happen once and as it turned out, it was completely my fault for not checking into something I knew I should have checked first.
Never had anything denied because it was over and above customary fees. In fact, I thought that was what Cigna uses to negotiate the rate they pay the provider, not something they use to deny a claim. If I'm not mistaken, the only thing that will happen there is the provider could potentially bill you for the difference but I'm pretty sure that their agreement with Cigna doesn't allow them to do that. They accept the negotiated rate as full payment.

Most Express employees are young enough where they don't run-up big medical charges. Why do you think there has been such a big push to get rid of senior employees who are much more likely to have serious health issues....especially work-related ones. This is how they keep medical costs down and make a profit off of the premiums. There is an incredible incentive for FedEx to do so and CIGNA is surely incentivized to participate.

I hear it on boards like this but I have yet to see any evidence that FedEx engages in age discrimination. There may have been individual cases but in general, I just don't see it. And yes, I've been around long enough and in enough locations that I would have expected to see at least one instance if it were happening. Most of the time, I see a lot of older employees who actually do the job better than younger ones and get recognized for that.

There is absolutely no way FedEx is making money of the premiums. Just look at how much health care costs compared to the premiums FedEx collects. To assert that FedEx is making a profit off of them is crazy.

Ever hear of the class action suit pending against FedEx for age discrimination? BPP was the means to try and get rid of older workers but the idea backfired and now FedEx is going to be paying-out another big settlement in the near future. Getting rid of the old-timers would have saved them big medical payouts by eliminating most of this high-risk employee group.

Just because people claim they were discriminated against doesn't mean they were. We'll have to wait and see what the courts say.
I assume you mean Best Practices, not BPP. What I find interesting about that is this: BP establishes accepted methods, standards, and rates for doing a job function and doing it safely. It doesn't consider how old someone is, what color they are, what gender they are, their ethnicity, etc. In other words, it's non-discriminatory. But the strange thing is when someone cannot meet an established rate that most people can meet, you often hear the cries of "it's FedEx's way of getting rid of older people". In other words, the employee is saying, "hey, I'm older and you should take that into account". So it's ok to take age into consideration as long as it only benefits the employee? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Ricochet1a]

I hear it on boards like this but I have yet to see any evidence that FedEx engages in age discrimination. There may have been individual cases but in general, I just don't see it. And yes, I've been around long enough and in enough locations that I would have expected to see at least one instance if it were happening. Most of the time, I see a lot of older employees who actually do the job better than younger ones and get recognized for that.

Just because people claim they were discriminated against doesn't mean they were. We'll have to wait and see what the courts say.
I assume you mean Best Practices, not BPP. What I find interesting about that is this: BP establishes accepted methods, standards, and rates for doing a job function and doing it safely. It doesn't consider how old someone is, what color they are, what gender they are, their ethnicity, etc. In other words, it's non-discriminatory. But the strange thing is when someone cannot meet an established rate that most people can meet, you often hear the cries of "it's FedEx's way of getting rid of older people". In other words, the employee is saying, "hey, I'm older and you should take that into account". So it's ok to take age into consideration as long as it only benefits the employee? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

So why did Express do away with the BST a few years back? A completely unbiased and objective evaulation of a candidates ability to perform simple functions. It is because tests like that tend to place certain groups of people who have capability to perform the job at a disadvantage in the selection process. Express trying to have and eat its cake too.....

I'm not saying that map reading skills, listening skills, reading skills or the ability to rapidly distinguish between different letter sequences aren't valuable characteristics of an Express employee, it is the METHOD by which those skills were assessed that was faulty.

FedEx does engage in various forms of age discrimination. You take a 24 year old athlete to establish a route goal over a few months time then place a 45 year old Courier on that route which has 20 years with Express and wonder why the stops per hour is 5% less? Come on, you know better.

Express for YEARS has structured its routes around the capabilities of very young and energetic Couriers to set route goals. Then experienced Couriers are placed on those routes and struggle to maintain that goal. If FedEx wants to do this, fine. But offer full retirement packages to Couriers after 15 years of service when their knees start to give out. You cannot honestly expect experienced Couriers to allow FedEx to chew them up over 15 to 20 years of work and then toss them out because some new hire can run the route 5% faster. This is yet another reason why Express desperately needs a union.

FedEx is too smart to actually place in writing "Get rid of the experienced Couriers that complain of knee pain". But FedEx DOES place policies into effect which are de facto discriminatory against those who are older. The latest push to get "an extra stop per hour", is just another attempt to get some of the older Couriers out. No where in that policy does it state "can the oldies", but the end effect is just that, push the Couriers to move even faster and if you can't move fast enough, out the door you go.

 

[quadro]

So why did Express do away with the BST a few years back? A completely unbiased and objective evaulation of a candidates ability to perform simple functions. It is because tests like that tend to place certain groups of people who have capability to perform the job at a disadvantage in the selection process. Express trying to have and eat its cake too.....

Not sure I follow you. How does it put people at a disadvantage if they can perform the functions? In any event, I wasn't privy to the legal settlement and I'm guessing that you weren't either. In general any pre-employment test that measures abilities to do the job is ok to use. The problem that I believe FedEx ran into was that if you hire someone into the courier job, for example, and they didn't take the BST but still adequately perform the job, you have invalidated the test. At that point it still isn't necessarily discriminatory but the problem is you cannot prove that it isn't. So best course of action is to do away with it. Not sure how that is having your cake and eating it too.

I'm not saying that map reading skills, listening skills, reading skills or the ability to rapidly distinguish between different letter sequences aren't valuable characteristics of an Express employee, it is the METHOD by which those skills were assessed that was faulty.

See above. I don't believe that it was. It was just that people were hired into positions and managers failed to administer the BST thus invalidating it. I think the methodology may have actually been supported by the courts but I'm not sure.

FedEx does engage in various forms of age discrimination. You take a 24 year old athlete to establish a route goal over a few months time then place a 45 year old Courier on that route which has 20 years with Express and wonder why the stops per hour is 5% less? Come on, you know better.

Actually I do know better. From my own personal observations and experience I see older couriers outperforming younger ones. Not just once or twice but at least as equally as younger ones outperform older ones. There are plenty of 40+ year olds who are just as fit as younger employees and there are plenty of younger employees who are lazy and out of shape.

Express for YEARS has structured its routes around the capabilities of very young and energetic Couriers to set route goals. Then experienced Couriers are placed on those routes and struggle to maintain that goal. If FedEx wants to do this, fine. But offer full retirement packages to Couriers after 15 years of service when their knees start to give out. You cannot honestly expect experienced Couriers to allow FedEx to chew them up over 15 to 20 years of work and then toss them out because some new hire can run the route 5% faster. This is yet another reason why Express desperately needs a union.

FedEx is too smart to actually place in writing "Get rid of the experienced Couriers that complain of knee pain". But FedEx DOES place policies into effect which are de facto discriminatory against those who are older. The latest push to get "an extra stop per hour", is just another attempt to get some of the older Couriers out. No where in that policy does it state "can the oldies", but the end effect is just that, push the Couriers to move even faster and if you can't move fast enough, out the door you go.

Honestly, what I see more often than not is someone using their age as an excuse. As in "I'm older and shouldn't have to work as hard". So again, it's ok for age to be taken into consideration as long as it benefits the employee. Maybe it's just me but I don't think that's fair. Either allow everyone to use age or no one.