Hi Debbie Kulling,

We will change this value from backend and will let you know tomorrow once the testing is completed.

Hi Jyoti Mayne,

As discussed, request you to please change the value from backend.

Thank you!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CC: Vijay Siddha, Mandar Kulkarni, Jaideep Vinchurkar

Hello Jyoti Mayne,

We tested possible scenarios from system and Import : Quincy for HSPL Stage

Scenarios from UI :

Scenario 1

salary 12 k
Grandfathered Executive Life Insurance plan enrolled with 50K
12 k * 1.5 is 18K < 4.5 lack
Universal Life Insurance plan available with coverage is 0K - Expected

Scenario 2

salary 50 k
Grandfathered Executive Life Insurance plan enrolled with 50K
50 k * 1.5 is 75K < 4.5 lack
Universal Life Insurance plan available with coverage is 25K - Expected

Scenario 3

salary 5 lacks
Grandfathered Executive Life Insurance plan enrolled with 50K
5 lack * 1.5 < 4.5 lacks
Universal Life Insurance plan available with coverage is 4 lacks - Expected

Scenario 4

salary 5 lacks
Grandfathered Executive Life Insurance plan enrolled with 50K
5 lack * 1.5 < 4.5 lacks
Universal Life Insurance plan available with coverage is 4 lacks
enrolled in both of the plan
changed employee's salary to 6 lack - no effect on above enrollments and coverage - Expected

Scenario 5

We found an issue in this scenario WT-9052
This issue is not cause we added 1.5 value from back - end - but we observed the same issue with Maximum Contingent Coverage Total = 1 TAC instead of 1.5

Rashmita Dudhe Please add the Import related testing scenarios and problem (if any)

CC - Sachin Hingole Rakesh Roy Hrishikesh Deshpande Prasad Pise Satya Jyoti Mayne Umesh Kadam

Hello Debbie Kulling,

One more query about the Eligibility Rule you have used for plans Universal Life Insurance and Grandfathered Executive Life Insurance

• the additional eligibility applied in this rule is Employee ACA Status Not Equal to ACA Employee

• if we are adding any employees, the field value is getting set as -Select (unless u ntil we are not keeping it as ACA Employee explicitly)
• if the field value is ACA Employee for any employee - these plans won't be shown to these employees - this is expected
• if the value is not ACA Employee - it remains as --Select-- and employee do not get to see these plans now also

Ideally having a --Select-- | Yes | No values for this drop down on demographics page and keeping this field as mandatory would solve this problem

CC - Sachin Hingole Rakesh Roy Hrishikesh Deshpande Prasad Pise Satya Jyoti Mayne Umesh Kadam Rashmita Dudhe

I have tested this through Import and scenarios #1, #2, #3, #4 are working properly through Import found one issue while testing jira WT-9055 link in Jira and assign to Developer.

Hi Debbie Kulling,

Please find above responses from QA and let us know shall we update mentioned field value to 1.5 from back end on main company as working of 1.5 is same as whole number e.g. 1 (without fraction).

Cc: Satya

Yes please update it from the back end. We will need to make this an option going forward.

Hi Debbie Kulling,

We have updated mentioned field value to 1.5 from back end. We have created JIRA WT-9066 to allow fraction value for this field.

Cc: Satya

Can you please increase the contingent max to 500000 instead of 450000. It will not let me update because of the 1.5 you added from the backend.

Hi Debbie Kulling,

We have updated contingent max to 500000 from back end.

Cc: Satya

This is working as expected. Please let me know when the times annual compensation amount will be able to be updated through the uI

Hi Debbie Kulling,

We have completed development for mentioned change in WT-9066 and it is on LB.

Prasad Pise, Please update Stage and Production deployment date for same.

Cc: Satya, Jaideep Vinchurkar