Sun editorial:

Back-room dealings

State law passed in 2007 Legislature’s closing days undermines oversight of health plans

Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008 | 2:08 a.m.

Toward the end of the Nevada Legislature’s 2007 session, when everyone was caught up in the rush to pass legislation, an amendment was slipped into a workers’ compensation bill that was sold as a way to close a loophole. But it did much more than that.

As revealed Sunday in the Las Vegas Sun by J. Patrick Coolican, state Sen. Bob Beers resigned before the session as vice president of a payroll services company. But, as the senator acknowledges, he introduced his former boss at Payroll Solutions to a fellow senator and, apparently, encouraged another senator to talk to the company executive. The other two senators ultimately slipped into Assembly Bill 161 an amendment on the company’s behalf without holding committee hearings or taking public testimony on the change. It was a brazen act.

Beers acted improperly if, as he says, he introduced company Chief Executive Howard Winters to fellow Republican Sen. Randolph Townsend of Reno, chairman of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee. He also acted improperly if, as Sen. Warren Hardy of Las Vegas said, Beers encouraged Hardy to talk with Winters.

The amendment itself, which was signed into law, also was troubling because it allowed the company and others that administer health benefits for a variety of employers to avoid oversight by the state Insurance Division. Payroll Solutions has argued it is not subject to state oversight because of the way its health benefits are administered. But the Insurance Division disagreed, as did the Bush administration’s Labor Department.

The dispute between the company and the Insurance Division wound up in state and federal courts after the state in 2006 fined the company $1 million and demanded back taxes.

Although the case remains in litigation, the amendment opened the door to insurance scams across the state, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto was warned by two of her deputies.

The public stands to lose by this move toward deregulation, which has dangerous consequences, as we have seen with our economy. The Legislature should overturn this amendment so that employees’ health plans are sufficiently protected.

Comments
Print
E-mail
Share
- Facebook
- Fark
- Digg
- Reddit
- Stumble
Tweet

Discussion: comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

No trusted comments have been posted.

By Rich

Oct. 7, 2008

7:08 a.m.

Flag

With all due respect, in between the string of "what ifs" an colorful word choices such as "slipped" (which seems erroneous given the public nature of the introduction), I think there are several key question that has gone missing.

Did Sen. Bob Beers aim to benefit his former employer or did he see an opportunity to allow small businesses to access better health benefits. And if the latter is true, isn't that what our legislators are supposed to do?

Many small businesses are playing as much as $1,200 per month for health coverage per employee with a family. Therefore, two employees with families can mean the difference of hiring another employee.

But what I really don't understand is why is why our employee health benefits being taxed anyway? Isn't the state supposed to empower small businesses to provide health coverage?

I'm disappointed in that I thought the Las Vegas Sun was on the side of more health coverage for more people, not less.

Rich
By KDR81

Oct. 7, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Flag

We need more deregulation of the insurance market. The reason why it is so expensive is BECAUSE of regulation.

1) Regulation that prohibits individuals and small businesses from buying out of state insurance policies.

2) Regulations that give a tax advantage to insurance over health savings accounts.

3) Regulations that require certain procedures to be performed by certain specialists. Example outlawing nurses to proscribe some medicines.

All of it is intentionally designed to drive up the costs of healthcare to enrich those who provide insurance, healthcare, or get elected.