from the pages of the Massachusetts municipal Association;
Sections 21 through 23 were enacted to offer a process by
which a municipality may modify health insurance benefits
without engaging in the traditional bargaining process.
Faced with ever-increasing health
insurance costs, municipal
employers are searching for relief.
Frustrated by attempts to implement
changes through traditional collective
bargaining, many cities and towns have
used the statutory process provided by
Sections 21 through 23 of Chapter 32B.
Sections 21 through 23 were enacted
as part of the 2011 municipal health
insurance reform legislation to offer a
process by which a municipality may
modify health insurance benefts (aka
“plan design”) without engaging in the
traditional bargaining process.
Sections 21 and 23 provide a procedure
by which a municipality may transfer
its subscribers to the Group Insurance
Commission (GIC). Section 22 permits
a governmental unit that has followed
the procedures outlined in Section 21 to
include in its health plans “copayments,
deductibles, tiered provider network
copayments and other cost-sharing plan
design features that are no greater in dollar
amount than the copayments, deductibles,
tiered provider network payments and
other cost-sharing plan design features”
offered by the GIC in, as applicable,
the non-Medicare or Medicare plan with
the largest subscriber enrollment (i.e., the
GIC “benchmark” plans). Presently, the
GIC non-Medicare benchmark is the Tufts
Navigator plan, while the GIC Medicare
benchmark is the Unicare State Indemnity
Plan/Medicare Extension OME.
While many municipalities have
decided to include in their plans all of the
features (at the maximum dollar amounts)
that Section 22 allows, a municipality
may elect to include only certain of
the allowed features and/or may include
features at a lower dollar amount than the
amounts in the benchmark plan.
Under Section 23, a governmental
unit may only transfer its subscribers to
the GIC if it can demonstrate that the
anticipated savings that it would realize
would be at least 5 percent greater than
the maximum possible savings that it
could realize if it made the full plan
design changes allowed by Section 22.
As the GIC benchmark plans contain
features that are not contained in most
municipal plans (for example, an upfront
deductible) and/or that are considerably
higher in cost to subscribers than similar
features in many municipal plans,
adopting the GIC plan design features or
transferring subscribers to the GIC can
have a signifcant impact on a municipality’s
health care costs.
The Process
Accept Sections 21 to 23: Section 21 sets
out the procedures that a municipality
must follow in order to implement the
changes allowed by Sections 22 and 23.
The frst step involves the acceptance
of Chapter 32B, Sections 21 to 23. In a
town, these sections are accepted by vote
of the board of selectmen. In a city with
a Plan D or Plan E charter, the sections
are accepted by majority vote of the city
council and approval by the manager. In
any other city, the sections are accepted
by majority vote of the city council and
approval by the mayor.
Prepare Implementation Notice:
State regulations governing Sections 21
through 23, issued by the secretary of
Administration and Finance, require that
the governmental unit’s appropriate public
authority (APA) prepare an Implementation
Notice. (In a town, the APA is
the board of selectmen; in a city, it is
the mayor.) The Implementation Notice
includes, among other things, information
concerning the changes to cost-sharing
features that the APA is proposing to
make to health plans, the estimated
premium savings that will be realized
during the frst twelve months following
implementation (including the analysis
that the APA has generated to support
those estimated savings), the percentage
of those savings that the APA is proposing
to share with subscribers, and the
vehicles that the APA is proposing to use
to share the savings.
posted by Jeff Bennett
All material on this blog is directed to members of the general public and is not intended to be read by my fellow Board members, nor do I intend for any readers to convey such material directly or indirectly to my fellow Board members.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Capital planning has a quorum?
Stopping in to the Capital planning committee meeting last night, I found three members at the table; a quorum at last and thank you to selectmen Doug Morrison, Advisory Committee member Julie Farrell and a citizen, Bob M. I believe. While Doug Morrison and a member of the Advisory Committee have usually always been in attendance, having a quorum has been a problem for this committee, but now a citizen has stepped up and things can happen we hope,, as required by a Town by-law. Now if we could only get the board of selectmen to follow the Town's by-laws! Of course, they could be distracted with math class!
posted by Jeff Bennett
next up will be salary, benefits and taxes of town employees.
Stopping in to the Capital planning committee meeting last night, I found three members at the table; a quorum at last and thank you to selectmen Doug Morrison, Advisory Committee member Julie Farrell and a citizen, Bob M. I believe. While Doug Morrison and a member of the Advisory Committee have usually always been in attendance, having a quorum has been a problem for this committee, but now a citizen has stepped up and things can happen we hope,, as required by a Town by-law. Now if we could only get the board of selectmen to follow the Town's by-laws! Of course, they could be distracted with math class!
posted by Jeff Bennett
next up will be salary, benefits and taxes of town employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)