State employee health insurance reform is the subject of several bills making their way through the legislative process. HB 2324 (Murphey and Stanislawski) and HB2888 (Moore and Bill Brown) were introduced as shell bills and are still not in their final version after leaving the House.
“OPEA knew health insurance would be an issue this session,”said OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley.“Over the interim, a working group met and discussed reforms to processes and the agencies that deliver the program.”
The State Employee Health Insurance Working Group,consisting of legislators and the Insurance Commissioner, contracted with insurance experts Milliman Consulting to review the insurance infrastructure and recommend reforms. The report was requested to examine the functions of the Employees Benefit Council (EBC) andthe Oklahoma State Education and Employees Group Insurance Board (OSEEGIB) and to determine if a duplication of effort existed between the two agencies. HB2324 and HB 2888 are based on recommendations made by the consultants.
"We want to offer state employees a variety of health insurance options at reasonable costs," said House Speaker Chris Benge,R-Tulsa. "This legislation is still a work in progress as we seek to lowe rcosts to the state while maintaining, or possibly even improving, health care services to our state employees."
The study examined current practices and made recommendations for the most cost-efficient and cost-effective way to leveragestate dollars to ensure the highest level of health care for state and education employees at a competitive price.
The report concluded:
• The functions of OSEEGIB and EBC should be integrated to form a new organization focused not only on the payment of health and other insurance claims but also on the wellness of the covered individuals;
• With the merged agencies, one oversight board should be created that would include members from backgrounds including medical and employee benefits, as well as those from legal and fiscal backgrounds;
• Include a stronger wellness component, not only within HealthChoice consumers, but those with HMO plans as well;
• HMO’s should be competitively bid. The more expensive HMO plans, which are used to calculate the benefit allowance, are chosen by few employees; and
• More choice is needed in rural areas of the state
OPEA’s is working to ensure state employees don’t lose funds from their paychecks if the HMO products are limited to those with competitive prices. The bill, as is currently written, freezes the benefit allowance at 2010 rates and requires the HMOs to bid against each other. The freeze would prevent the benefit allowance from decreasing significantly if the HMO rate goes down because of competitive bidding. If the higher cost HMOs were eliminated, the benefit allowance would fall closer to the HealthChoice rate, reducing the funds state employees use for co-pays and deductibles.
“The goal is to improve the infrastructure and provide choice to more state employees without reducing the benefit allowance state employees count on to help pay their bills, concluded Zearley.”
Posted on
Monday, March 15, 2010
by Trish Frazier