Insurance Issues Heat Up

 

This past weekend, HB 1704 (Benge, Coffee) was rolled out. This legislation is a massive overhaul of the Oklahoma State and Education Employees Group Insurance Board and the State Employees Benefits Council. The bill is over 280 pages long and includes significant changes to the program. OPEA has had an opportunity to review the proposed legislation and to share ideas with legislators on what the bill includes what it excludes, and why they are proposing certain items. The Association has had in-depth discussions with Senator Cliff Aldridge, R-Choctaw and Senator Bill Brown, R-Broken Arrow as well as high ranking members of the House Staff.

 

"OPEA has expressed our concerns and suggested changes," said OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley. "The Association’s objectives are a better insurance product for state employees and more choice for rural areas. More importantly, the goal is to protect funds in state employee paychecks."

 

"Clearly, there are issues with the current way the state handles the insurance options," added Zearley. “Passing on an increase in premiums to state employees is not an option."

Some of the items included in the bill, at this time, that OPEA has discussed with legislators include:

  • Reserves. Any money in OSEEGIB reserve funds over $120 million would be used to fund either Health Savings Accounts (HSA), Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA), or contributed to SoonerSave.

  • Freezing the Benefit Allowance. The legislation proposes freezing the stat e employee benefit allowance for three years. OPEA has raised concerns over this point, because state employees have not had a raise since October 2006 and freezing the allowance will cause state employees to lose money. The Association has recommended that any change in the benefit allowance would include indexing to HealthChoice rate increases.
  • Benefit Allowance Savings. The bill also requires that any money in the benefit allowance after the purchase of benefits be placed in an HSA or FSA. OPEA has recommended that the expenditure of benefit allowance dollars be left at the discretion of employees. Some state employees purchase less expensive benefits to help supplement their family budget with benefit dollars.
  • HMO Choices. The legislation requires one competitively bid HMO. This would allow the state employees in rural areas a choice other than HealthChoice. However, this may be difficult, since currently no HMO covers the entire state.
    Administrative savings.
  • Administrative Savings.  The proposed draft mandates that 15 percent of the administrative costs to run the plan be returned to the state General Fund. While there may be savings in a consolidation of agencies, 15 percent is high. A good portion of the administrative cost for OSEEGIB is for claims processing and payment into the State.
  • High Risk Pool. These savings would be on an annualized basis and should not impact the cost of premiums.
  • Wellness. The proposed legislation requires all employees to participate in the state wellness program. OPEA is concerned at how this program would be incentivized. There should be rewards of some sort, including monetary.
  • Composition of the Board. The proposed language does not allow for any plan participants to be on the board. OPEA has asked for a seat on the board, either as an official member or as an ex-officio member of the board.

 

OPEA is involved in the discussions of the proposed language and will be holding a meeting with the OPEA Board of Directors in the near future to further discuss the ideas and proposals.

 

"Watch the website closely for further updates in the insurance program," concluded Zearley. "During the last weeks of session things happen quickly. We may have a quick call to action on this important issue."

35 comments (Add your own)

1. George wrote:
Give State employees the allowance and let us buy our own insurance because what we are paying is a crime in its self....

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 11:40 AM

2. wrote:
RIDICULOUS. Remember this is a "benefit", part of our total compensation package...requiring employees to disperse money into a HSA or FSA isn't right, it's the employees choice to do so, it's their benefit. How about we stop requiring every state employee to get coverage if they have it already i.e. retired military.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 12:32 PM

3. #### wrote:
i agree, pay us the benefit allowance and tell us to go out and get our own insurance, Blue Cross and Blue sheild quoted me $847 a month to cover a family of four not the $1400+ the state claims it costs.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 1:04 PM

4. Nothing wrote:
I can get much cheaper (and better) insurance through my partner's benefits at work. I would rather have the allowance (part of my total benefit package) and pay for my own insurance. Like it has been stated above... state employee insurance is more expensive than almost anything you can buy privately on the market. What a waste of our $.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 1:39 PM

5. Gail wrote:
I too got a much better quote from Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 1:46 PM

6. #### wrote:
if i went full time at my night job insurance for a family of 4 is $190 bi-weekly. granted that is only medical, vision and dental would be extra but still 190*2.1= $409.00 a month.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:23 PM

7. WILLIAM wrote:
MAKE ALL STATE EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE IN THE WELLNESS PROGRAM. MIGHT AS WELL DROP ALL PRETINSE AND START GREETING EACH OTHER WITH COMRADE. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY ARE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS BEING USURPED BY STATE GOVERMENT. THEY NEED TO WAKE UP, THE PEOPLE ARE SHOUTING AT THE PRIMARY'S ABOUT GOVERMENT BEING TO INVOLVED IN ARE DAY TO DAY LIVES BY KICKING OUT THE INCUMBENTS. PLUS IF WE PARTICIPATE WHICH ARE THEY GOING TO DO PAY US FOR THE TIME SINCE THEY REQUIRE PARTICIPATION OR DO WE GET A SEVEN HOUR WORK WEEK. BECAUSE IF ITS REQUIRED FOR THE JOB THAT BECOMES A JOB DUTY AND REQUIRES TIME COMPENSATION.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:30 PM

8. Nancy Harrison wrote:
We better hope we have state benefits, because once you have had cancer or some such health problems you will not be able to be covered by any other plans. If you could find it, you could not afford it. After my experience with cancer, I was told I would NEVER be able buy insurance without being part of a group policy.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:33 PM

9. wrote:
#6, what's sad, we have to have night jobs to help cover the bills.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:38 PM

10. John wrote:
Agreed. Give us the benefit and let us procure our own health insurance. I too have been quoted a much better policy and rate by Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
After 6 years of trying to get an address change, I don't have any confidence that HealthChoice can do much of anything right. They are awful and totally incompetent in my opinion.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:49 PM

11. !!!!!!!!! wrote:
What about letting couples that work for the same state agency or any state agency, be allowed to get on one or the other's insurance instead of mandating both get indivdual insurance. It is less of an expense to add spouse and dependents than it is for each of us to get our own.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:50 PM

12. Jim wrote:
What have we heard about furloughs?

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:57 PM

13. Jack 1 wrote:
I can't afford the exercise program, I have to save energy for the 2nd job I hold down, to make ends meet. On second thought maybe the exercise would give me the energy I'm going to need for my 3rd job I'm fixing to need.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 2:59 PM

14. The Realist wrote:
Let's face it folks, we're all pretty dang lucky to have a job in this economy. Namely, one that pays for the vast majority, if not all of our health insurance premiums and that of our families. I remember when we had to pay for our insurance elections, including family members, OUT OF POCKET. The state is broke, admittedly the insurance isn't the greatest, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Just ask someone that doesn't have it!

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 3:00 PM

15. %*%*%*%*%*% wrote:
We are lucky to have a job but so are our elective officials. I pray that everyone will look how each and other one of them vote and appreciate the hard work that state employees do. It seems lately, all they look at is when, where and how much they can cut.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 3:14 PM

16. Jack 1 wrote:
Ok Realist lets be real. The state gave us perks instead of raises. Now that are budgets are set on a certain income, the state wants to take perks away. These perks allowed us to manage through the tough times. They don't care that we are already paid less, they just want to put more on us. Our debt to income levels are going in reverse due to inflation. Add alittle more of the burden to pay for state government on the employee. These people running our government would never make it in the real world. I might also add I own another business which allows me to survive. My fellow employees are the ones suffering.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 3:32 PM

17. Phil wrote:
My concern is that one of the basic attractions of state employment has been that even though we don't enjoy the windfalls that a strong economy offers the private sector, at least we have job security and benefits - something the private sector can't guarantee. How long do you think it will be before people figure out that public employment is a crap-shoot? No one with any qualifications will waste their time working for the State of Oklahoma. Sadly, the short sighted ultra-conservatives who got us into this mess will be long gone by the time this becomes apparent.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 4:07 PM

18. The Realist wrote:
JACK 1---Debt to income ratios are determined by whom? Not the state, but the debtor and his/her ability to manage the income that is generated from his or her income or enterprises. Geez. Complaining about salaries and/or benefits is absurd. We all knew what our jobs paid when we took them...we all knew what the benefits were. Things change. It's truly a situation in which if you don't like it....leave it. But don't bite the very hand that is feeding you and your family!

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 4:43 PM

19. CONCERNED wrote:
We lost a dear employee the end of March. She could not afford the $50.00 co-pay each time to go to the doctor, along with the co-pays for her prescriptions. She was living on one income... secretary I salary...she lost her life because she could not afford the constant co-pays to keep up with our state insurance requirements. If we are already paying high insurance premiums we should be able to get health care and prescriptions without it being a life or death situation.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 4:47 PM

20. Carl wrote:
I think its time for some reform. I would rather have some options in insurance as well as controlled costs as opposed to my coworker or me loosing my job

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 5:13 PM

21. Virgil wrote:
No one is talking about trying to provide your family with coverage after retirement or you yourself trying to keep up your own coverage with only $105.00 allowance after retirement.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 5:50 PM

22. wrote:
How about making the insurance companies pay more for therapy. Having a child with Autism and having to pay the high price of the insurance and then not getting the therapy paid for so have to pay it on top of the premiums and then all the copays and co-insurance for everything else is a real struggle and then to worry about being furloughed on top of that which will cut into the salary. It's a viscious cycle that needs to be stopped. And, HealthChoice is the crappiest insurance I have ever had but because it's the only one that's not an HMO then there's no choice but to choose it. The claims processing can't get anything right, it they even process it at all and then has to be done over and over again. Plus, there's all these provisions that make the insurances cover treatment for smoking, drinking, etc. but you know what those people make that choice to drink or smoke...my son didn't choose to have Autism...it just is...start making the insurance companies cover it better and not just for children but for all individuals affected, adults alike.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 8:31 PM

23. Member for Life wrote:
OPEA has tried for many years to tell us that we had better stand up and fight. I am ashamed of many of my coworkers who won't lift the phone to help with any of this. You can bet they will be the first ones to fill their plate with pizza and complain about OPEA at our next meeting.

Wed, May 19, 2010 @ 9:45 PM

24. thankful wrote:
Just thankful right now to have a job AND insurance. Before I began working for the State, I had surgery --TWICE-- with no insurance. took me 12 years to pay the bills. And, I know for a fact, that I will be unable to get insurance coverage with any other carrier.

Thu, May 20, 2010 @ 7:14 AM

25. Jack 1 wrote:
Realist the point I am making is that for approximately the last 6 to 8 years are incomes have went backwards. The state has not kept up with cost of living. Food,Gas,insurance (not just health), basic living expenses have gone up, Wages have not. This all figures into debt to income ratios. A person does not have to buy anything to change debt to income, living expense can do it for you. The economy has gone south on everyone. The state has slowly been taking the state employee south for a number of years. I remember 2 different times that insurance went up and my income went backwards.

Thu, May 20, 2010 @ 10:55 AM

26. Mike Rogers wrote:
To The Realist: Jack1 said it about as good as you can,,, yes we all know that we were not going to become millionairs working for the state, but we also know we did not want to qualify for food stamps also,,,,,, the cost of living has increased over 12% in the last 6 years but our income has not kept pace,,, using your thoughts we should just be quite and instead of eating 3 meals a day just start eating 2 and when the cost of living goes up even more then we can just eat once a day and if things keep going to the extream then we can start paying the state to work for them!!!!! Please, state employees are not asking for a 6 figure salary, we are just asking for a fair wage so that we can make a decent living,,, tell ya what "realist",,, the pay increase we do get, don't take it and we will spread it out to other people and you can be making the same thing 10 years from now but good luck trying to be able to make the same ends meet each month, instead of buying 1 dozen eggs a couple of years from now you can just buy 6..... we just all need to stick together and ask for a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Thu, May 20, 2010 @ 3:15 PM

27. Reader wrote:
I understand the need for more money just like anyone else. For all of you who still have your jobs, there are close to 3 million who don't, please try to show a little more gratitude. It really can be a lot worse.

Thu, May 20, 2010 @ 9:03 PM

28. Member for Life wrote:
Yep, thats what they tell us every year. "be glad you have a job" Like we are supposed to be greatful for just being allowed to exist. No thanks "Reader," I am not just happy to have a job. I want to be treated as the valuable employee that I am. Not some second class citizen because I happen to enjoy helping people who are trapped in drug or alcohol abuse.

Thu, May 20, 2010 @ 9:26 PM

29. Jack 1 wrote:
There are many jobs out their. People just don't want to get dirty or sweat for the money. I know carpenters that need laborers, brick layers who can't find helpers and these are just a few. These individuals are starting their help out at 10 to 12 dollar an hour. There are no benefits, but it is a job. Most pay overtime and it is often 10 to 15 hrs per week. I myself am not scared of work and I'll make it. The problem is just like Phil put it, the people the state will end up with are those unquailified and unwilling to work. It will take twice as many to do the job. Better to pay 10 twenty dollars an hour than to pay 20 ten dollars an hour, you save the cost of benefits on ten people, even though your hourly cost remain the same. I'm a short timer with a skilled job to go to when I'm gone, then I'll still be lobbying for better wages for state employees but more qualification as a way to control taxes. I understand the need for taxes, but I sure hate to see them wasted.

Fri, May 21, 2010 @ 12:29 AM

30. Kris wrote:
A good example of not paying competative wages is to look at how much money the State spends on adademy and core for all new DHS workers, then they gave incentatives out a couple of years ago. These same people leave for better paying jobs or because the pay isn't good enough for the amount of stress and work load that we endure day after day. Out of 21 academy workers I was with 8 years ago, I am the only one left. I also know that it is the same thing with a lot of other classes also. The incentive pay didn't even keep workers on board. Why not use that money to increase our salaries to be more competative.

Fri, May 21, 2010 @ 11:55 AM

31. JULIE wrote:
I have to say that I have been disappointed in lots of things since I joined the state workforce. I have only been with the state for 2 1/2 yrs. I can see that there are a lot of people that sit around all day doing very little. Then there are others that work all day everyday. I have a couple of suggestions. Mandatory retirement at a given age or time. Evaluate job titles and upgrade several of them and get rid of others. I happen to think that the insurance costs are okay but then I only insure myself and my husband. It would be nice if there were more coverage and lower co-pay amounts. I realize that I may be one of the ones to go if they implemented my idea but I get upset when I see people griping about their pay when they do very little all day and I am paying part of their salary through my taxes.

Mon, May 24, 2010 @ 1:35 PM

32. The Dude wrote:
Well to all the people that get Blue Cross and Shield it's nice. But for some of us there are "preexisting conditions" that BC and BS won't cover. I tried other insurance companies as well, they would cover me but only if I paid higher than normal premiums or waited 6-9 months. That won't work for me. I can not afford to lose my current insurance due to a newborn and my current health problems. The current state insurance I have covers most of it with mid/high premiums even though it is an HMO. I’m thankful for at least having insurance at this point in time. I agree that we should get a raise to keep up w/ inflation, being a state employee is not easy, its hard work, at lest in my situation. It makes me mad to say the least, all “others” see is $$$$$$ we spend blah, blah, blah. There is more behind the scenes work they don’t see that keeps the state operating. We need to act and do something. What do you think needs to be done?????? Details!!!!!!!

Tue, May 25, 2010 @ 9:32 AM

33. Robert wrote:
I came to work for the State not for the money but for the benefits. If we have to start paying for benefits out of our own pocket, what incentive is there for keeping qualified, experienced personnel? Yes, times are tough but State employees are among some of the lowest paid professionals in their fields. We choose to work for the State knowing the pay is low but the benefits outweigh the meager paycheck. I work two jobs as it is now, not because my lifestyle dictates it but to make ends meet. Take away my benefits and I along with hundreds, maybe thousands will be leaving the State services in which hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans depend on. Our State legislation needs a massive overhaul not the benefits that keep quality employees working for the State of Oklahoma.

Tue, May 25, 2010 @ 10:03 AM

34. FAB wrote:
I also realized when I started working for the state that the pay was not the best but the holidays and benefits made up for that pay as compared to some private sector jobs. Now after all the years that I have impoved my knowledge to stay current in my job I find I am moving backword. Without meaningful benefits the state will not be able to attact any worthwhile workers. Instead of telling us to be thankful for our jobs our elected officials and agency heads should be thankful they have us. Because without us there is not a need for them or their high paid positions. Most agencies are top heavy with incompetent directors only overseen by ridiculiusly stupid elected officials that work ever so hard to extract more salary from the state and could care less about the normal state employee. In this coming socialist society that we see in the nation the only positive will be when the pay czars tell the state governments that agency heads can only be paid twice what the lowest paid employee receives. That is when you will see change.

Tue, May 25, 2010 @ 6:10 PM

35. Jeremy wrote:
You would bankrupt all state employees. Most of us already have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet. We are paid well below those in the private sector.

Wed, May 26, 2010 @ 9:18 AM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.