| |
| |
ARHME members -
As requested at the June General Membership Meeting, attached is the spreadsheet that we reviewed at the meeting comparing current city health insurance costs for retirees under 65 with the cost of the insurance if it were offered to retirees as was done prior to Bill White's changes. I have spent a lot of time with city staff trying to unwind how the city offers and pays for health insurance. I believe the info in the attached spreadsheet is correct although I did get some conflicting responses to my questions that I believe I have correctly sorted out. Actives and retirees are under one plan, and are being billed to the city by Blue Cross at the Premium Rate, which is the same for actives and retirees in the same category. From Blue Cross' perspective, we are all in one pool for insurance rate purposes. The city has chosen to segregate active and retiree insurance and place us in separate pools (Segmented Rate) for purposes of how the city will offer and pay for insurance for actives and retirees. To my knowledge, the city is the only public agency (Harris Co. and Metro) that does this. Although the current mayor continues to say that this was done to assign the cost to the group contributing most to the cost of health insurance, I believe this was initially done by then mayor Bill White to penalize early retirees. Parker is continuing it because of commitments that the city has under meet and confer agreements with the unions that spell out how much the city must contribute to active insurance cost. It would cost the city considerably more to offer the insurance at the same rates to retirees under the current segmented rates. To treat retirees more fairly she would have to place actives and retirees under the Premium Rates (which would have resulted in increased cost for actives) or budget more funds for health insurance for the city to pick up a larger share of the retiree insurance cost, and she is unwilling to do either. So most of the funds budgeted were needed to pay for the city's contribution to active health insurance cost and we got what ever was left over.
George Bravenec |
|
|
|
| |
| Retiree Only |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retiree Pays |
|
Retiree % |
|
City Pays |
|
City % |
|
Total |
| 2009 Segmented Rate |
172.00 |
|
28.67 |
|
428.00 |
|
71.33 |
|
600.00 |
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
256.38 |
|
39.53 |
|
392.20 |
|
60.47 |
|
648.58 |
| 2010 Increase/(decrease) |
84.38 |
|
49.06 |
|
(35.80) |
|
(8.36) |
|
48.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
256.38 |
|
39.53 |
|
392.20 |
|
60.47 |
|
648.58 |
| 2010 Premium Rate |
256.38 |
|
63.64 |
|
146.50 |
|
36.36 |
|
402.88 |
Additional cost to retiree from
segmented rate structure |
0.00 |
|
24.11 |
|
(245.70) |
|
(24.11) |
|
245.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Retiree + 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retiree Pays |
|
Retiree % |
|
City Pays |
|
City % |
|
Total |
| 2009 Segmented Rate |
507.04 |
|
35.06 |
|
939.00 |
|
64.94 |
|
1,446.04 |
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
756.60 |
|
48.38 |
|
807.23 |
|
51.62 |
|
1,563.83 |
| 2010 Increase/(decrease) |
249.56 |
|
49.22 |
|
(131.77) |
|
(14.03) |
|
117.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
756.60 |
|
48.38 |
|
807.23 |
|
51.62 |
|
1,563.83 |
| 2010 Premium Rate |
756.60 |
|
77.89 |
|
214.78 |
|
22.11 |
|
971.38 |
Additional cost to retiree from
segmented rate structure |
0.00 |
|
29.51 |
|
(592.45) |
|
(29.51) |
|
592.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Retiree + Family |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retiree Pays |
|
Retiree % |
|
City Pays |
|
City % |
|
Total |
| 2009 Segmented Rate |
791.00 |
|
41.57 |
|
1,112.00 |
|
58.43 |
|
1,903.00 |
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
1,179.90 |
|
57.37 |
|
876.62 |
|
42.63 |
|
2,056.52 |
| 2010 Increase/(decrease) |
388.90 |
|
49.17 |
|
(235.38) |
|
(21.17) |
|
153.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
1,179.90 |
|
57.37 |
|
876.62 |
|
42.63 |
|
2,056.52 |
| 2010 Premium Rate |
1,179.90 |
|
92.36 |
|
97.54 |
|
7.64 |
|
1,277.44 |
Additional cost to retiree from
segmented rate structure |
0.00 |
|
34.99 |
|
(779.08) |
|
(34.99) |
|
779.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Active only |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Pays |
|
Active % |
|
City Pays |
|
City % |
|
Total |
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
38.10 |
|
10.12 |
|
338.50 |
|
89.88 |
|
376.60 |
| 2010 Premium Rate |
38.10 |
|
9.46 |
|
364.78 |
|
90.54 |
|
402.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26.28) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Active + 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Pays |
|
Active % |
|
City Pays |
|
City % |
|
Total |
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
216.16 |
|
23.79 |
|
692.52 |
|
76.21 |
|
908.68 |
| 2010 Premium Rate |
216.16 |
|
22.25 |
|
755.22 |
|
77.75 |
|
971.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(62.70) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Active + family |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Pays |
|
Active % |
|
City Pays |
|
City % |
|
Total |
| 2010 Segmented Rate |
265.42 |
|
22.21 |
|
929.46 |
|
77.79 |
|
1,194.88 |
| 2010 Premium Rate |
265.42 |
|
20.78 |
|
1,012.02 |
|
79.22 |
|
1,277.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(82.56) |
|
|