P&G early retiree health plan problems

[nafddur1]

Are there any other Procter and Gamble early retirees (retired using the `rule of 65' guidelines) here? If so, have either your health or dental plans been affected - ie cancelled unexplainably - when P&G switched billing companies in January? I noticed my Cigna (dental) coverage ended 12/31 last year, not-so-coincidentally the day our billing company changed.

I have had the Cigna dental coverage since taking my early retirement back in 1994, 16 1/2 years ago. Now, after 6 weeks of efforts to get the erroneously cancelled policy reinstated, I appear to be getting nowhere.

I've heard that there were a couple thousand managers who opted for the early retirement offered by P&G when all those unionized plants were closed during the 90's. I can't believe that I'm the only one who has noticed this dental (and possibly health care) plan snafu. I'm especially concerned because, while this isn't the end of the world with dental insurance, I certainly wouldn't want to be going through this nonsense down the road if my wife and I decide to switch to the medical coverage offered P&G early retirees,

 

[rescueme]

(retired using the `rule of 65' guidelines)

Wow - rule of 65? The company I retired from had the rule of 85, but that was eliminated along with the defined benefit (pension) program in my early years with the firm.

Assuming you started there at age 22, it means you only needed to be there 21.5 years and could retire at the age of 43.5. Is that correct?

 

[nafddur1]

Wow - rule of 65? The company I retired from had the rule of 85, but that was eliminated along with the defined benefit (pension) program in my early years with the firm.

Assuming you started there at age 22, it means you only needed to be there 21.5 years and could retire at the age of 43.5. Is that correct?

Wow, I'm impressed, rescue. You hit it right on the head! I started with P&G when I was 22 (a few months away from my 23rd birthday), right after finishing a 5 year master's program and getting my ME degree in management engineering. I retired the day after I turned 44, the same year I completed my 21st year with the company.

21 + 44 = 65. I don't believe partial years were considered but, in retrospect, they might have been. Then I wouldn't have had to wait for my actual 44th birthday to stop working. I do know that if the plant I was in had closed just one year earlier, I wouldn't have qualified for retirement using the `rule of 65.' I'm also pretty sure that the `rule of 75' was standard at P&G back then. In order to pare down the management ranks as plants were closed and manufacturing operations consolidated, the `rule of 65' was started to entice people like me to retire.

But I didn't stop working completely at 44. I worked for 5 more years until my kid's college expenses were finished. Then, at 49, I retired full time.

The rule of 85 - especially back in the 90's - just doesn't seem right (it seems WAY too high, at least to me) to qualify for full retirement benefits. But, considering life expectancies increasing these days and companies looking to reduce costs wherever possible, maybe it's now more of a standard. Then again, you said your company eliminated even that, rescue. Mind me asking what company that is?

 

[Bestwifeever]

Wow, I'm impressed, rescue. You hit it right on the head! I started with P&G when I was 22 (a few months away from my 23rd birthday), right after finishing a 5 year master's program and getting my ME degree in management engineering. I retired the day after I turned 44, the same year I completed my 21st year with the company.

21 + 44 = 65. I don't believe partial years were considered but, in retrospect, they might have been. Then I wouldn't have had to wait for my actual 44th birthday to stop working. ,,,But I didn't stop working completely at 44. I worked for 5 more years until my kid's college expenses were finished. Then, at 49, I retired full time.

If you're eligible for Medicare (if I'm adding you actually retired at 49 and have been retired for 16 years), maybe the retiree health plan ends at 65 (DH's retiree health plan does)? And that's why the retiree dental care ended too?

 

[nafddur1]

If you're eligible for Medicare (if I'm adding you actually retired at 49 and have been retired for 16 years), maybe the retiree health plan ends at 65 (DH's retiree health plan does)? And that's why the retiree dental care ended too?

I've `only' been retired (full time) for 11 1/2 years, Besty. I did retire from P&G in 94 (16 years ago), and that's when I started my retiree dental care program. But, remember, I didn't consider myself to be truly retired until 99 when I stopped working completely.

It's a good thought but, since I just turned 60, Medicare considerations haven't come into play (yet). Working this issue with P&G's retiree benefits division, I think I found out why we early retirees (the retiree dept. confirmed that I'm not the only one with this problem, hence, the reason I started this thread) have encountered this. It seems to be merely semantics. We early (rule of 65) retirees apparently are also referred to as `terminated with benefits' employees by P&G. It looks (at least to me) like when the new billing company sees the word `terminated.' they stop the insurance coverage. The problem now is getting this misunderstanding rectified, and I don't understand why our retiree benefits division is having such a hard time doing that.

 

[rescueme]

I don't understand why our retiree benefits division is having such a hard time doing that.

As a white-collar retiree, I have the same challanges as you (awaiting a current medical benefits booklet for quite some time).

Once you are gone, it seems to be "out of sight - out of mind". Especially for those firms that have been "absorbed" into another (as my former company was - twice)...

Nothing new here...