Board extends coverage to domestic partners of state employees

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 | 2:50 p.m.

With veto override, domestic partners bill (5-31-2009)
Senate overrides governor's veto of domestic partners bill (5-30-2009)
Gibbons vetoes domestic partnerships bill (5-25-2009)

CARSON CITY – By a 5-3 vote, the board that governs the state health insurance system has agreed to extend coverage to domestic partners of government and university system employees.

It will be a pay-as-you go system, meaning the coverage for the domestic partners will have to be paid fully by those covered without any subsidy and without costing the system any money.

The Public Employees’ Benefits Program Board did not set the rates or a start-up date. That will be decided later.

The 2009 Legislature approved a domestic partners bill giving them the rights enjoyed by married couples. The legislation left it up to public and private groups whether they wanted to provide such coverage.

The program suggested it needed $3.7 million a year to cover domestic partners in the state health plan. But the Legislature didn’t provide funding.

The Nevada System of Higher Education pushed for the state to open the door to cover the domestic partners of state and local governments and the university system. It offered a plan under which the premium for the domestic partner would be picked up in whole.

Jim Richardson, representing the university system and the faculty alliance, suggested the premium be $760 a month to cover a domestic partner, either of the same or opposite sex. That’s the premium charged the spouse of a state worker, but the Legislature provides a subsidy.

Richardson said other university systems provide coverage for domestic partners.

Carol Lucy, president of Western Nevada College, said the school has positions to fill and it is competing with other systems. She said it puts the college “at a competitive disadvantage not to offer it,” referring to the domestic partner coverage.

Board Chairman Randall Kirner said Gov. Jim Gibbons believes the decision whether the coverage should be offered should be made by the Legislature, not the board. Gibbons vetoed the domestic partners bill but his veto was overridden by the Legislature.

Board member Julie Teska said it was “the worst possible time to add benefits.”

Teska said the Legislature had two opportunities to send a clear message on what it wanted. It could have included a $3.7 million annual appropriation in the budget or it could have mandated the coverage in the domestic partnership bill. “They took a pass,” she said.

But board member Jacque Ewing-Taylor said there probably would not be a lot of people signing up for the coverage.

Timothy Nimmer, senior vice president for AON, the actuary for the system, also said he did not believe there would be a lot of people joining the system.

If there was a major claim from someone in this group, he said the rates would have to increase greatly in the future to cover that cost. Or if the experience is good, than the rates could be lowered.

Voting against extending coverage were Teska, George Campbell and Van Mouradian.

The domestic partnership law goes into effect Oct. 1. Richardson suggested the coverage for domestic partners could begin Nov. 1. But Leslie Johnstone, executive director of PEPB, said it may be more practical to start in July 2010 to allow more time to work out the details such as the rates.

The board set the rates for 43,000 employees and retirees already covered for the next plan year that begins Nov. 1. The Legislature allocated a subsidy of $626 per month per employee and $317 for a retiree.

Jon Hager, chief financial officer for the program, said the employee under the new system will pay $34 a month, up from $28. And employees with spouse will pay $232, up 10 percent from the present cost.

Hager said a retiree will pay 10 percent more to $198 a month and a retiree with spouse will see the premium increase from $583 to $631.

Discussion: 19 comments so far…

By neiman1

6/30/09 at 3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Don't you love the way unelected boards give things away without any input from the public. I am actually in favor of this coverage but feel it's totally wrong for the public not to have a say in what benefits are given.

We are a republic. Elected representative at least answer to the public at each election. These boards may include an elected member but it should be the legislature or the city or county involved if benefits are to be given away.
By afveteran

6/30/09 at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am opposed to this type of coverage. It's immoral and an affront to sensible people.
By genetik71

6/30/09 at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

I believe the Legislature did send a clear message that they thought this was the right thing to do and voted to add these benefits. unfortunately the dire financial crisis of the state prevented them from funding the benefit. The legislature was also unable to fund a number of other programs for the sick and dying and for children, but it did not mean they were opposed to such programs.
By UNLVStud

6/30/09 at 4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

It's great to see that coverage is being extended to all partners of individuals. This will make NSHE slightly more competitive in the market.

However, all partners should be treated equally. If the Legislature was looking to save money, they should've made the spouses of ALL couples pay the same $760 amount and should STOP paying the subsidies to all those spouses who don't work for those benefits. Budget crisis solved.
By Houstonjac

6/30/09 at 4:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am opposed to this coverage. It is expensive, and difficult to enforce. Why does this board have the authority to make this decision? Let a couple be married before extending these benefits.
By revtomperl

6/30/09 at 4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is great news - recognizing the rights of all - may it represent a step toward a future of love and kindness.
By ShannonK

6/30/09 at 4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Houstonjac:

What part of "It will be a pay-as-you go system, meaning the coverage for the domestic partners will have to be paid fully by those covered without any subsidy and without costing the system any money" don't you understand? It isn't going to cost you a dime.
By nevadaappleslices

6/30/09 at 4:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am for this BUT given the current economy, did they do a study about how much this will cost the system? Are they raising everyone's premiums to cover the extra people? And, ShannonK, it does cost money for extra people to be insured. Are you saying that they are treating domestic partners different than a spouse?
By Sunvisitor

6/30/09 at 7:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

If all couples could get married, you'd have a point, Houstonpac but for some reason heterosexuals feel threatened by same sex marriage. They think it will harm the sanctity of marriage. Of course they ignore how so many heterosexuals harm that sanctity every single day.
By Nick

6/30/09 at 8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Why charge gays more than heteros?

Houston Jack is white trash from texas.

Seems unfair
By bdover

6/30/09 at 10:10 p.m.

Comment removed by staff.
By JBond

7/1/09 at 6:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Poor Neiman another empty comment. Rather than spending time being an Sun blog troll try going to a public buildings where the agenda is posted, or going to the website of pebp and you can see the item was set for discussion. If you truly feel that it was not properly noticed file a complaint with the AG's office, problem is you will loose as you don't have a case.
By LVPaco

7/1/09 at 6:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

This decision is in line with recent legislation that creates Domestic Partnerships that becomes law on October 1 of this year... This is progressive legislation that takes Nevada forward when it comes to equality under the law.
By atdleft

7/1/09 at 7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Houston-

OK, so why won't Nevada allow marriage equality? Let gay & lesbian couples marry, then your problem is solved.

Sunvisitor-

Thank you. How is it that a loving gay couple is "disgusting" but a cheating John Ensign or Mark Sanford isn't?
By KillerB

7/1/09 at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

afveteran -- 1) exactly what place does your version of morality have in public policy? 2) I'm "sensible" and not "affronted," quite the opposite. Your reasoning behind your statement is --?
By gunowners4obama

7/1/09 at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

"and without costing the system any money."

That's a ridiculous statement. Of course it costs the system plenty of money. Health care is expensive.

I have no problem with the sentiment here, but the timing couldn't be worse. People have managed to live with this system this long. The midst of a state budget crisis is not the time to take on a huge new expense for domestic partners, when plenty of other people - including helpless children - will have increased suffering due to budget cuts!
By bremskraft

7/1/09 at 10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

gunowners4obama, it will not cost the system any money because domestic partners will be required to pay their own subsidy. In other words, domestic partners will need to pay around $8,400 per year to join the system. The system may, in fact, profit from DP's.
By arthursmail

7/8/09 at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

hey bremskraft, gee 8400 a year, wait until somebody is hospitalized, to the tune of a half million
By VegasResident

7/14/09 at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Okay, so in the pay as you go method, the employee with a domestic partner would pay 100% of the premium. The only reason people add spouses etc to a employer plan is because it cost less.

With having to pay a full $760 a month, you may as well go out and get a nice individual policy from a health plan company.

The State is extending nothing. They are only acting as the middle man to the insurance company.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

This should be handled logically.

1. Actually find out how many employees will want health coverage for a REGISTERED domestic partner. Then see the actual cost.

And for everyone that is talking about it being the worst time to do this.

If it is that bad then NO ONE should be added to a policy for the next year, not domestic partner, not new spouse, not new child.

Every time I hear about cost I wonder about every single say as a new spouse or new child of a married couple is added without questioning the cost.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question