Teamsters win round in health insurance battle

Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2000 | 11:10 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Teamsters Local 14 in Las Vegas has won a round in its fight to lure state workers to sign up with the union's health insurance plan.

The state insurance system has 28,000 members, but union officials say they can offer better health coverage, especially for dependents, at a lower cost.

The Legislative Commission Monday agreed with union complaints that the state Public Employees Benefits Program Board had written its proposed regulations to be too restrictive in preventing anybody from choosing an outside insurance plan.

The 1999 Legislature approved a law that if a group of 300 or more employees or retirees wanted to leave the system, they could apply to the benefits board.

The state presently pays a monthly premium of $368 a month to cover each employee. The employee must pay $124 if he wants to cover his wife. And a family policy costs $224.

Gary Wolff, representing the Nevada Highway Patrol Association and the prison correctional officers, told the commission that the Teamsters policy costs $425 a month for the entire family. And anyone who joined would still receive the $368 state premium payment.

He said employees with children can't afford the state premium. "We can get a better deal for a few bucks," he told the commission.

He and other union officials argued the proposed regulations governing pulling out of the system are too restrictive. And the commission agreed.

Sen. Ann O'Connell, R-Las Vegas, told the benefits board to redraft the regulations. "It is incumbent on the state to allow employes to have a choice of coverage," she said.

But Jan Marie Reed, executive director of the state plan, said there was no intention to prevent anybody from leaving the system. The regulations, she said, were to protect all the state employees.

For instance, the proposed regulations required that a certain percentage of retired employees must be included in any plan that competes with the state plan. Retirees cost more in benefits than the regular state worker. So the state doesn't want to be left with the high-priced retired workers all in its system.

But there is nothing in the law that says a new insurance plan must have a percentage of retirees covered.

The regulations say the benefits board must decide if the competing policy will provide "reasonably equivalent benefits." Union officials say it should be up to the individual employee to decide if he or she likes the policy being offered by an outside group, not the benefits board.

The proposed regulation would also require a competing group to post a surety bond for 105 percent of the amount of the benefits expected to be paid out a year. Union officials objected to this provision.

Once the regulations are re-written, they must come back before the legislative commission for approval.