Strategies For Public Entities June 12, 2017 Topics Superintendents - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Latest Trends Collective Bargaining and Healthcare Strategies For Public Entities

June 12, 2017

2

Topics

Legal

• Chapter 78 “sunset”
• Key PERC decisions
• Changing Retiree benefits
• Unilateral addition of low

cost plan

• Structuring contract

language

• Wellness program
• Opt out of Pitfalls C.78

Superintendent’s View

• Unforeseen budget

challenges

• Interplay – salaries and

benefits

• Negotiations process
• New Dynamics/Trends
• Plan provider changes
• Language to avoid

3

State Health Benefit Plan Reforms

• Plan enacted plan design changes effective starting in November 2016
• Substantive Reforms included
• Cap out of network PT
• Generic drugs as “bases”
• Formulary preferred
• Reforms held rates to a 2.4% increase

(SEHBP increase of 8.4% for active population)

4

• 4 year phase-in Effective June 28, 2011

− Unless in a contract effective beyond that date without being reopened

• r modified.
• First groups completed their phase-in June 28, 2015
• Most employees have completed the phase-in by now.
• Some have not, and others have been creative.

Chapter 78

5

• What now?

− Parties after the full completion of Year 4 are able to negotiate

• Most Public Sector Unions are resigned to the fact that Year 4 premium

sharing amounts or their Dollar equivalents are here to stay.

• However, the parties are able to negotiate to the old statutory minimum of

1.5%, which did not sunset.

• There is no reasonable basis given the ever rising costs of healthcare to

reduce the Chapter 78 premium sharing, unless there are offsetting concession elsewhere in the benefits package.

− Consider proposing plan design changes over Chapter 78 rollback. − Use “2% standard” to trade concessions for increases over 2% without

touching Chapter 78

Negotiations After the Sunset

6

• All collective bargaining units view Chapter 78 as a reduction of pay that was

not negotiated. − They disregard the countless years where no public employees contributed to benefits while these lucrative insurance plans increased well over the rate of inflation. − There is no concern on the employees part over health insurance premium increases, rather their focus is over the $$$ Chapter 78 removed from their pay − Union Representative understand that there isn’t going to be a rollback

• f premium share and salary increases will not offset C.78… Though

they may be slow to acknowledge it to their groups.

Union Positions

7

Education

• NJEA

− At the outset is seeking drastic reductions to Year 4 premium sharing rates.

− The fallback position is capitating the contribution at a flat dollar amount

for each employee.

• Eliminates the potential for annual increases due to premium costs

and salary.

8

• FOP/PBA

− Taking an initial position of rollbacks to 1.5%. − Settling for status quo or capitating the current rate with a flat dollar amount. − Most recognize that a drastic departure from C.78 is a difficult sell in interest arbitration.

• Must be prepared to defend regardless.
• Interest Arb Cap

− Sunset December 31, 2017 − 2% hard cap on base salary − Employer may settle for more.

Law Enforcement

9

• Management can apply the following approaches:

− Maintain the Chapter 78 structure as if there was never any sunset in the statute.

• Even at full implementation some employers are not even

recovering the rate of increase on their benefit plans.

• Percentage of premium is a concept that provides flexibility.
• Employee is able to appreciate cost impact
• Skin in Game

Negotiations

10

• Utilize a flat percentage(s) to equalize contribution

− Besides being an administrative inconvenience, Chapter 78’s varying

percentages based on salary and coverage level can limit flexibility for employers.

• Less incentive on lower paid workforce to modify plan offerings.
• Flat percentages have the potential to preserve Chapter 78 savings,

while incentivizing plan design changes.

• Easier concept to present to employees.
• Need to calculate the average rate to generate appropriate savings.

Equal Premium Contributions

11

• Institute base plan designs with employee paying the “up charge” for

upgraded plans.

− Will appeal to higher paid employees (25%-35% levels) − Employees save on the upfront contributions.

• HSA eligible
• Roll portion of savings back

− Not usually a viable option for employers that have high utilization rates

among their employees.

Base Insurance Plan

12

• Incentivize High Deductible or Alternative Plans

− Most employers offer multiple plan offerings and some of those are high

deductible plans.

− However, those plans are among the most underutilized throughout the

State, even among low utilization employees.

• 90% of all non-state public employees in NJ are in Direct 10 Plans.

− These plans may save an employer 20%-30% of the annual premiums. − With the sunset of Chapter 78, employers may incentivize the selection

• f an insurance plan.

− Invest some of those savings into the employees by offering a “bonus”

for enrolling in a high deductible or tiered plan.

• Avoid base salary increases if possible.

Alternative Plan Designs

13

• If all else fails stick with Chapter 78

− It remains part of your agreement until it is negotiated out. − The employees have now adjusted to the rates. − It is easier to say “no” to a change, than to sell a new concept. − Any capping or reductions with one unit sets the pattern in the wrong

direction.

− Without something in exchange, there is no reasonable basis to reduce

• r cap the employee’s contribution with the ever rising costs of

healthcare.

If It Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It

14

• Health Insurance Provider Changes

− Flexibility to change providers is essential − The ability to change providers is a managerial prerogative.

• However, plan design, network, and copays are negotiable issues

for collective bargaining.

• Skin in the game makes employees more receptive – SHBP

changes − With the sunset of Chapter 78 there is no longer a mandate to match savings of plan with the SHBP or SEHBP.

• Free to select any plan without considering the State plans.
• However, there are State “best practices” which may be applicable.

Plan Provider Changes

15

• Contract Language

− “Equal to or better than”

• With the exception of creating a match plan through a different

provider, plans are almost never equal. − Different networks, different Rx brands categories, different services.

• “Substantially Equivalent” is preferable language.

− Accounts for variations between providers and plans. − This language DOES NOT alleviate the employer’s need to negotiate changes, rather it provides a certain level of flexibility.

• Always dependent on the facts and circumstances of the

change in plans.

Plan Provider Change Considerations

16

• Plan identification in contract

− The less language the better

• Some contracts incorporate plan design in the insurance article.

− Throwback to self insured plans − Need to balance identification of the plan/benefits against the preservation of managerial prerogative to change providers.

• Copay amounts

− Before public employee premium sharing, copays were the most commonly negotiated aspect

• f health insurance plans.

− Today, copay changes have less impact on the cost of healthcare plans.

• Example: Doctor copay from $10 to $20.

− Most contracts include copay amounts within the insurance article. − Include language for future retirees.

• Benefits and Copays will match active employees.

− Best way to ensure cost containment Rx Costs

• Generic/Brand
• Generic/Formulary/Non-Formulary
• Step Therapy

−

Use SHBP as standard of benefits

• If drafted correctly, will provide for incremental changes of plan at the pace of the SHBP.

Plan Provider Change Considerations

17

• Premium sharing changes

− What impact will changing plans have on employee premium sharing?

• Chapter 78 charges percentage of the premium.

− If premiums increase, so does the employee’s contribution.

• May be negotiable depending on the circumstances.

− Coverage type (single, family, etc.) − Employee groups – retirees

• Across the board decreases in premiums are never a problem for all

parties.

Provider Change Impact on Premiums

18

• Retirees

− Standard is the contract the employee retired under.

• Must match to the best of your ability or reimburse to status quo.

− What was the plan design 5 administrations ago?

• Likely only need to go back to the most recent change in plans for

retirees. − Reimbursement may ultimately cost less.

• Puts responsibility on retiree to seek reimbursement.

− Retiree group may litigate an attempt to raise a copay from $5 to $20, but individual retirees may not bother to seek $15 reimbursement for their doctor appointments.

− Factor each group into your analysis.

• Does change in providers still provide an overall savings even if there is an

increased cost to match/reimburse retiree plans?

Retiree Considerations

19

• Transition

− Lead time is golden

• The more you get the better it will go.

− Help your elected officials understand.

• SHBP and SEHBP

− 75 to 90 days from passage of resolution

• Coordination with insurance brokers
• Open enrollment
• Providers need time to process employees
• The better informed employees are the less contentious the process

is.

Let’s Move

20

• Dissemination of Information

− Develop plan with insurance broker/plan representative

• Plan design documents

− Summaries − Comparison/analysis − Rx classification − Comprehensive plan documents − Projected employee savings

• Links to webpages are good to supplement printed documentation, but are not

adequate replacements for documentation − Meet with Union representatives

• Most union representatives are knowledgeable and experienced.

− Don’t mistake understanding for support.

• Some contracts require meetings within a certain time period in advance of the change.

− Regardless of contract language, some notice to unions is required.

Knowledge is Power

21

• Employee Meetings

− Union executive board/negotiating team members.

• Provide information
• Point out positives of changes

− Reduced premiums = Reduced contributions − Lesser of two evils

• Discuss employee meetings

− Employee meetings

• Be prepared for the worst

− Repeated questions − Obscure hypotheticals

• “Will I be covered if I contract a rare illness like Sealpox?”
• Just the facts

Patience is a Virtue

22

Unilateral Changes to Benefit Plans

• In the event that a change is necessary before all interested parties can or

will consent, then an employer may choose to take unilateral action pending a negotiated resolution. − Providers may always be changed unilaterally. − Levels of benefits and copayments/deductibles are negotiable.

• Contractual Language may alleviate to an extent.

− Will result in litigation – Cost/Benefit Analysis

23

• The State Health Benefits Plan Design Committee has the authority to

unilaterally change plan design and requirements.

− The committee shall have the authority to create, modify, or terminate

any plan or component, at its sole discretion. Negotiations over such issues are preempted by Title 52. See NJ Attorney General and Non- Commissioned Officers; et al. 40 NJPER¶ 177

“Substantive Changes”

24

• Unfair Labor Practice before PERC

− An employer taking unilateral action without matching coverage or adhering to the language can expect to have a ULP filed against them.

• Along with a request for Interim Relief (PERC Injunction).

− PERC has granted interim relief where the employer has not provided

employees with at least “status quo” reimbursement for plan changes.

• Along with Plan Comparisons, reimbursement plans should be

considered in advance of taking unilateral action. − Assuming interim relief is denied or held in abeyance, the ULP process should allow Management/Labor to reach a negotiated settlement to any

• utstanding issues, especially where it is tied to any overall contract

settlement.

Unfair Labor Practice (”ULP”)

25

• Incentives or disincentives to encourage healthy lifestyle for employees.
• Goal is to reduce utilization of benefits for conditions that are avoidable or

manageable through lifestyle changes.

− Smoking − Obesity − High Blood Pressure − Alcohol Abuse − Etc.

Wellness Programs

26

• Using rewards such as gym membership reimbursement or discounted

premium sharing for participation in smoking cessation programs are forms

• f incentive based behavior modification.

− The employee demonstrates participation and receives the incentive.

• Penalties such as increased insurance premium cost or exclusion from a

benefit offered to other employees are forms of disincentives to modify behavior.

− Some employees pay more attention to a cost vs. a reward

Carrot or Stick

27

• The concept using either method are simple and straightforward.
• Most Employers like the potential of such plans.
• Employees are more likely to respond in a positive way to the concept over
• ther health insurance reforms.

− Keep my plan the same and I will go to the gym.

• As a practical matter, wellness plans are difficult to implement and monitor.
• The actual impact on medical claims cost is hard to quantify and is slow to

show results.

Effectiveness

28

• Over the past 5 years employee litigation over wellness programs have

increased.

− ADA claims filed privately or through the EEOC for discrimination. − Until recently, ADA challenges were rejected by courts under the safe

harbor provisions of the ADA rendering health insurance based decisions exempt from the Act. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Flambeau, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173482 (W.D.

• Wis. Dec. 30, 2015) and Seff v. Broward County, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1370

(S.D. Fla. 2011), aff’d 691 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2012).

− Recent decisions have rejected the safe harbor exception indicating that

the EEOC makes those determinations as the regulatory agency.

• See EEOC v. Orion Energy Systems, Inc., No. 14-CV-1019 (E.D.

WI) 2016

How Far is Too Far

29

• New Jersey does not provide a safe harbor for Employers (editorial note –

On any issue).

• LAD has broader protection covering more conditions than the ADA.
• Public Employers are not covered by the ERISA preemption offered to

eligible private plans.

• There is no settled law related to this issue and the LAD, but the more severe

the disparate treatment the more likely a challenge.

LAD

30

• Be wary and conservative in your approach on these programs.
• They may become a useful cost saving method but the risks must be

considered before implementation.

Bottom Line

31

Questions & Answers

33

• Future Budget Challenges

− Continued flat state aid − Continued 2% cap − Running out of budget “one timers”

• Banked cap is gone
• Have reduced all non-instructional line items to the bare minimum
• Have little or no capital reserves
• May have already privatized custodial, transportation, and

paraprofessional services

• May have already conducted reductions in force over one or more

budgets

• May have already cut student programs and activities

Dealing with Collective Bargaining Agreements and Future Unforeseen Budget Challenges

34

• Future Budget Challenges (Continued…)

− Continuing Reductions in Federal Aid programs

− Continued “fixed” cost increases

• Utilities
• Salaries & Benefits
• Special Education Tuition
• Transportation

Dealing with Collective Bargaining Agreements and Future Unforeseen Budget Challenges

35

• Approach might be to negotiate a total dollar amount increase for

year 1 of the contract inclusive of increment and projected increased benefit costs (Examples??)

• The two items should be linked – a concession in benefits ( opt-out

waivers eliminated or reduced? ) might be tied to a higher than average settlement (Examples?)

Interplay Between Two Largest Budget Items, Salaries and Benefits

36

• Relationship building with the union representatives

− Open and honest communication is important − When negotiations get difficult this relationship is critically important − Can’t allow egos of the negotiators to get in the way of movement/progress

• Managing board member involvement

− Although the administrator has no input in the selection of the negotiating team, a balanced team that understands the time involved in the process − Members must understand the confidentiality associated with the negotiations process. Typically the solicitor can deliver a very strong, clear message about confidentiality in these matters as the process

The Negotiations Process

37

• Selecting an attorney

− Experience in negotiation public entity contracts in your specific field (municipal, k-12 education, higher education) − Attorney must be accessible and available to the administrator and BOE President to discuss issues, strategy, schedules, etc.

• Managing the Public

− Negotiations are confidential. Public can be informed that negotiations are ongoing, but can’t get any update on progress. − Non-negotiating committee Board members can’t receive an update either. − In protracted negotiations this aspect can get very ugly fast, especially in the social media world in which we live today.

The Negotiations Process

38

• High deductible health plans
• Incentives to employees for selecting high deductible health plans

(overwhelming majority in state plan are in Direct 10)

• Willingness of employers to negotiate away Chapter 78 contribution levels as
• established. According to a presentation Greg and I attend two weeks ago,

45-55 school districts have made concessions on Chapter 78 contributions since the statute has sunset.

− If all else fails stick with Chapter 78

• It remains part of your agreement until it is negotiated out.
• The employees have now adjusted to the rates.
• It is easier to say “no” to a change, than to sell a new concept.
• Any capping or reductions with one unit sets the pattern in the

wrong direction.

New Dynamics/Trends

39

• Politics and Chapter 78

− Phil Murphy & NJEA

• Trying to negotiate eliminating or reducing the opt-out/waiver provision that is

still in many contracts

New Dynamics/Trends

40

Health Insurance Provider Changes

• Flexibility to change providers is essential
• The ability to change providers is a managerial prerogative.

− However, plan design, network, and copays are negotiable issues for

collective bargaining.

• With the sunset of Chapter 78 there is no longer a mandate to match savings
• f plan with the SHBP or SEHBP.

− Free to select any plan without considering the State plans.

Plan Provider Changes

41

Plan Identification in Contract

• The less language the better

− Some contracts incorporate plan design in the insurance article.

• Throwback to self insured plans
• Need to balance identification of the plan/benefits against the preservation of

managerial prerogative to change providers.

• Include language for future retirees.

− Benefits and Copays will match active employees.

• Rx Costs

− Generic/Brand − Generic/Formulary/Non-Formulary

Plan Provider Change Considerations

42

• Carrier names
• Plan names
• Naming SEHBP, SHBP
• Co-pay amounts
• General Rule – less is better!!

To Avoid in Contract Language

43

Questions & Answers