Here's an example contract from TN's FB for one of their plans.I should have said they are structured like insurance.
I'm looking at the Texas plans. They use UnitedHealthcare's Choice Plus network of providers, and have a schedule of benefits that looks like regular insurance plan. I haven't seen a copy of the contract they have with members, but presumably there is one, and it sets out when they're obligated to pay for services.
They're not regulated as an insurance company, thought, so the Texas Department of Insurance has no jurisdiction over them. That's something to be aware of, but I'm not sure it should be an absolute deal-breaker.
As I said, healthshare ministries are never obligated to pay for anything, and indemnity plans do have a contractual obligation but it's a fixed amount depending on the service and has nothing to do with how much a member has to actually pay for the service. The Farm Bureau plans behave a lot more like insurance than either of these two.
Pretty much all of the nay-saying about the Farm Bureau plans has to do with their being allowed to impose restrictions based on pre-existing conditions, and from what I've seen it comes from companies that have ACA-compliant plans that have to take everyone regardless of their health status and have to offer certain benefits (like maternity care and free preventative care), and organizations representing the conditions that qualify as pre-existing conditions, like cancer.
They say these plans don't have the "consumer protections" that ACA plans have, but then talk pretty much exclusively about being refused enrollment because of pre-existing conditions, the abolition of which is a hallmark of the ACA. That's not really a "protection" if someone has no pre-existing conditions.
Same with maternity care--someone wanting to criticize non-ACA-compliant plans could say they lack consumer protections, but does it matter if someone doesn't care if maternity care is covered or not? What are they being protected from by having it be required?
At least the KFF article was pretty clear about how it found the Farm Bureau plans lacking, instead of just kind of hiding behind the headline-friendly "they lack consumer protections."
Cheers.