Post a comment$900 a year ($75 month) savings. That is worthwhile but it looks like the employee is getting screwed. The premium rate the city will get from BC match what would have been paid if BC was a non-profit instead of for profit. BC profits, dividends to stockholders, and bonuses to high paid CEOs will now come out of co-pays and deductibles. Why don't they give the employee the money and let them find their own plan? If the details shared thus far are accurate it is possible to do better for less with an individual plan (ex: PPO with $1200 deductible; $25/$35 co-pays for $600 month + $98 mo/dental+ $100/mo prescription = $798: $140 less than city now pays for non-union employee) >>> In true Nutter form, I'll bet this is NOT well thought out, but is a plan in the works and will not be well implemented. I've written in other blogs that, based on the Pew Report which cites health care costs as a major problem for Philadelphia, city managers are not competent to manage a health insurance plan. All the way around it costs more for less insurance for a city administered plan. This is not a cost control measure this is a money grab by Nutter (aka Rendell) and cronies. As I've also written, raise employee contributions, raise co-pays, raise deductibles but DO NOT LET THE CITY MANAGE THE MONEY!!! Taxpayers beware. This will not be good.
I buy insurance to protect me from debt and bankruptcy in case of a catastrophic illness. The city does the same. Given the failure of all levels of government to put aside adequate funds for unforeseen problems, the taxpayers of Philadelphia will be at great risk under a self-insure scenario. It is axiomatic that money in the hands of government gets spent.
I was thinking the same thing StevenR is -- can the city really manage self-insurance? The city is not an insurer, and doesn't insulate itself from risk adequately, so they end up with mandatory debt "service" or mandatory debt payments from having to borrow to cover their not being in the business of health care planning, and last minute end runs to make budget. The reason the insurer plan is so high is because they are betting that city employees tend to be older smokers and the morbidly obese, and they're right. City employees tend to be in much worse health than the average white-collar employee, and worse than many blue-collar businesses. So the city's not really insulating itself from risk, because the insurer of cost overruns will just drop the policy or raise rates as soon as they realize the city is going to have a lot of problems. The changes to the outside insurers is legit and necessary, because there is no incentive otherwise to get users to make critical cost saving changes unless they are on the hook for some of that cost. People who pay 10% of their hospital bill for a diabetic incident find a new motivation to quit smoking and lose weight. I support what Nutter's people are doing, but urge caution at the self-insured part.
The unions need to get a good whiff of the way of things to come also. They're going to have to be partners and not adversaries at the table. If they want to pull a TWU, they're going to threaten their existence, and Stu Byko won't be writing the encomium. He'll be writing the obituary.
Please read the Pew report. DC 47 (I am not a member) provides better coverage for less money from the city, smaller co-pays, smaller deductibles and smaller employee contributions. The city should look to them for examples as to how to run a fund. What would the savings be if the city just left it in the hands of BC but with the changes (higher co-pays, deductibles, etc)? What would the cost differential be if the employee or pensioner were given a few options such as lower deductible or lower co-pays or 100% hospitalization with a higher employee/pensioner contribution? The plan includes medical, dental, prescription, and vision coverage. Why can't an employee purchase a basic policy but with a mix of enhancements based their own need? >>>> as to the savings, Nutter could realize the same savings ($6 million) by reducing DHS staff to meet state mandates and based on DHS own data (decreased, placements and caseloads, etc) and taking into account state and federal contributions (i.e., this is the city's contribution to DHS). While addressing employee benefits needs to be done having the city manage the fund and self-insure is a dangerous path to go. The City administrators are simply not good at.
You are all missing the point. Nutter and mayors before him get kick backs from BC for themselves and the city....not under the table of course but the money comes back in the form of jobs for others and bc paying for events etc This is on the backs of the employees. GIVE THE MONEY TO EMPLOYEES TO MANAGE THERE OWN ACCOUNTS!!!!!!!
6 comments
