« Ind. Courts - Former Attorney Charged with Theft | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Lawsuit to block closing of Silvercrest fails »
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Ind. Gov't. - "Senators will keep lifetime benefits"
Several papers report today on the changes to be made to the Senate health care perks. The bottom line, so far as the ILB has been able to determine:
- Current Senate retirees (including spouses and staff), and those eligible who retire this term, will continue to receive the same benefits as before, for the life of the legislator and the life of the spouse (or ex-spouse). The same applies to current House retirees.
- Senate retirees after this term, who have served the requisite 6 years plus one day, who are under age fifty, may, if they elect, continue to be covered by the same plan as state employees, but must pay the entire cost. House members who retire after this term apparently may also continue to be covered by the state plan, if they pay the entire cost. (Most state employees who take early retirement cannot afford this program, which currently can cost more than $1,400 per month, and increases each year as health costs increase.)
- Senate retirees after this term, who have served the requisite more than 6 years, who are age fifty or over, will continue to be eligible for the state plan and taxpayers will subsidize part of their insurance, based on a sliding scale (not available so far) tied to their age and years of service. Apparently their surviving spouses will also retain this benefit. House members who retire after this term, however, are no longer eligible for the subsidized plan.
- Current House and Senate retirees do not have to select Medicare when they turn 65, but can continue under the state paln. Under the new Senate plan, future retirees would have to elect Medicare, plus a state Medicare supplemental plan, which I have been told is far more costly to the retired state employee than equivialent plans available from AARP or RIPEA and so has very few members. Apparently, however, taxpayers will be subsidizing this supplemental plan for retired state Senators. State representatives who retire after this term would have no special coverage.
Taxpayers will continue to pay for lifetime health insurance for most state senators, even though this perk grew so unpopular with the public that the Indiana House canceled it.My thought. Yes, Hoosiers know this. That does not mean they will agree that they should continue to guarantee and to help subsidize such insurance for part-time legislators and their families who retire after age 50.Senate leaders said Wednesday they've retooled the plan to save Hoosier taxpayers money, but they wouldn't say how much the current plan costs, how much the new plan will cost or how much money will be saved.
The Senate's new plan is based on a complicated formula that uses a senator's age and years of service to determine how much his or her health insurance premium will be.
Taxpayers save money because the perk no longer will be offered to those who leave the Senate before age 50. In addition, retired senators will have to join Medicare at age 65, which shifts some of their health-care costs onto that federally funded program. * * *
Senators also get to keep the coverage for their families, including ex-spouses.
Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, said that as an employer, the Senate wanted to help those who retired after age 50 but before they're eligible for Medicare. "You don't have any way to get any insurance. You're outta luck," he said. * * *
Senate leaders staunchly defended their decision to keep the benefit. Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, said this serves as a model to other employers. "I think it's really important that everyone has access to the health system."
Lesley Stedman Weidenbener reports in the Louisville Courier Journal:
The current House Speaker, Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said last month that he was essentially eliminating the program for his members. Under his plan, lawmakers who retire after the upcoming election could stay on the state health insurance plan only if they pay the full premium cost.My thought. Well yes, but private business pays with its own money, while the legislature pays with our money.That would be at least three times more than they were paying under the old plan. * * *
Sen. Luke Kenley, the Noblesville Republican who helped develop the new rules, said research shows that individuals in their mid-50s and older will struggle to find health insurance on their own. So he said Senate leaders believed it was appropriate to leave some benefits in place for older retirees.
Under the new plan, however, senators will typically pay more for their coverage and will be required to join the federal Medicare program when they are eligible. Currently, they and their families can continue to receive state health-care coverage -- paying the same percentage they did as state employees -- for the rest of their lives.
Kenley said that a retired senator's cost for the new program will be based on a sliding scale that takes into account time served and age at retirement.
The longer senators serve and the greater their age at retirement, the less they'll pay for insurance. Younger senators with less tenure will pay more.
For example, if Kenley retires this year at age 60, his 14 years of experience means he would pay about 53 percent of his insurance premium, while the state would pick up the other 47 percent. That compares with the 24 percent of the premium that Kenley pays now.
If Garton retires in three years at age 75, his 26 years of service means the state would continue to pick up about 76 percent of his insurance costs.
However, because Garton now qualifies for Medicare, he would not be eligible to sign up for the full state plan. Instead, he could receive only a state Medicare supplement. * * *
Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, said employers should be providing that coverage, and she commended Garton for continuing some insurance for retirees. She said that should serve as an example for private businesses.
"Separated (cushioned?) from reality" is the only answer I can come up with to explain why these legislators can seriously set forth as a justification for their health care perks the fact that most Indiana citizens "do not have any way to get insurance" unless they have a plan through an employer.
The Indianapolis Star editorial today is headed "Don't be fooled by Garton's games." It begins: "Our position: Senate leader's change in health benefits for retired legislators is a farce."
[For earlier related ILB entries, select "Legislative Benefits" from the list of categories in the right column, or by selecting "Legislative Benefits" in the line directly below this entry.]
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 16, 2006 05:52 AM
Posted to Indiana Government | Indiana Law | Legislative Benefits