CLEARFIELD – A union representative James A. Dugan for Clearfield County probation officers believes Clearfield County has been paying in “excess” for its employees’ health insurance coverage and wants the board of commissioners to submit to the arbitrator’s decision, which renders for their solicitation of competitive proposals.
On Sept. 30, Dugan addressed a letter to Marianne Sankey, human resource coordinator for Clearfield County, regarding the impartial arbitrator’s decision in the Matter of Interest Arbitration between the Clearfield County Association of Professional Employees (probation officers) and Clearfield County.
According to the decision, he said that the county is to coordinate the request, receipt and evaluation of proposals for alternative health insurance coverage. Additionally, the county will establish a committee and offer participation to one person from each county bargaining unit, providing they will be selected by the bargaining unit in question.
In the letter, Dugan advised the county he’d been selected to represent this group on the committee and requested notification of the procedures the county plans to implement in meeting the terms of the impartial arbitrator’s decision. He said the decision also stated that the final discretion to deny change in coverage rests with the county. However, he said the county has “demonstrated its inability” to control the dramatic rise in healthcare coverage for employees and wants them to submit to the arbitrator’s decision. Dugan believed the following facts discovered through the collective bargaining and arbitration procedures must be addressed.
- In 2011, he said Clearfield County is paying almost $30,000 per year per covered employee for family healthcare coverage. He said this amount is almost double the national average and is more than $10,000 more than what the Clearfield Area School District is paying for its employees.
- He said Clearfield County could not or would not provide healthcare claims information by collective bargaining groups as requested during collective bargaining but did provide the requested information at the arbitration hearing Jan. 11. He indicated that the adjusted claim information for 2010, as provided by the county’s benefit consultant for the CCAPE group was $63,141 or an average of $5,740 per eligible member.
- During collective bargaining, he said the county wasn’t aware of the percentage increase in administrative/cooperative fees for 2010 and couldn’t definitively state whether the program was self-insured or fully insured (without checking with the consultant).
- The county, according to Dugan, took four months to respond to written questions regarding operation of the healthcare program. At most, such information should have been provided within three weeks, he said.
- During the arbitration hearing Jan. 11, he said the county’s benefits consultant stated that the consultant hadn’t made any recommendations to the county to consider in controlling the dramatic increases. The consultant also stated the county hadn’t asked for any such recommendations.
- Even though the county had information obtained through the collective bargaining process that there was at least one possible alternative to the current healthcare plan, Dugan said the county’s administrators refused to entertain discussions regarding a change in carriers. He said putting the collective bargaining process aside, there wasn’t anything to prevent the county from exploring options for healthcare coverage. Although they’re “technically not required,” he said surrounding counties routinely solicit proposals for healthcare coverage.
- According to Dugan, county officials have stated that the current healthcare program has resulted in over $3 million in refunds. He said he’s been advised of refunds exceeding $600,000 being submitted to the county in 2011. If such refunds were realized, he said any reasonable person would wonder why family healthcare coverage costs $30,000. In addition, he said the county’s benefit advisor should have been aware of the status of claims versus deposits during his testimony Jan. 11 at which time his report didn’t give any such indication.
Dugan said the county will need expert services in initiating a request for proposals, establishing guidelines to control the process and professional assistance in reviewing the proposals. He said since the county’s current benefit consultant also manages the program, that consultant cannot advise the county during the process due to what he believes is a “conflict of interest.”
Also, he suggested that the firm’s performance to date would question their ability to provide the professional guidance necessary. In an effort to move the process along, he provided contact information for three firms that have the expertise necessary and said the county’s labor counsel would be able to “vouch” to the expertise of these Pittsburgh area firms. He suggested the county check with surrounding counties regarding consultants with the necessary expertise.
Dugan noted that the program adjustments to the healthcare coverage noted in the impartial arbitrator’s decision closely resemble some of the recommendations provided by CCAPE in collective bargaining.
“Right now, they’re paying almost $30,000 for family coverage and probably in excess for the past four years or so. Why haven’t they solicited? Why haven’t they done anything about it? When you’re approaching $30,000 (for family healthcare coverage), why not try to find an alternative?” he asked.
“It is possible that after completing this process, the current program may be the most viable option. Although I believe that scenario is unlikely. The fact is, the county simply does not know. And, saying it is so, doesn’t make it so.”
For him, the more “transparent” the process is, the more it will benefit, the county, the CCAPE members and the county taxpayers. If the process is to be successful, he said the county must “refrain from providing misleading information and implement the procedures to provide accurate information in a timely manner.”
Further, Dugan believed it would be important after the program is selected that the county implement procedures to monitor the healthcare program and if necessary coordinate efforts with employee groups to improve the efficiency of the program selected. Long-term, he said these programs will not operate efficiently on “auto pilot,” and the county must be actively involved in monitoring the claims experience.
Dugan said it’s important for the county to initiate these procedures as soon as possible. While the county may have lost significant savings by not seeking competitive proposals for 2011, he said it doesn’t make sense to delay efforts to determine if savings can be realized for 2012. He asked to be advised as soon as possible regarding the county’s process and assumed the county will notify the other bargaining groups in the county about the process.
When asked if the commissioners would issue a response to Dugan’s letter, board chairperson Joan Robinson-McMillen said the commissioners couldn’t comment at the present time, as it would violate their contract negotiations. She said their labor counsel Rich Miller had expressed willingness to comment on the letter. His contact information could not be provided at the commissioner’s meeting Tuesday at which time members of the press were told it would be later via e-mail. The contact information wasn’t provided to this writer Tuesday upon two e-mail requests.
