Higher deductibles, copays amount to 15 percent contribution
By Jennifer Eisenbart
Staff writer
After hearing criticism that teachers were not paying a percentage of their premiums as part of the 2011-2012 Burlington Area School District budget, School Board Member Larry Anderson made a point that many district residents may not realize.
With the district now requiring higher co-pays and deductibles from its teachers, the end result is that teachers are paying about 15 percent of their health insurance costs so to speak.
The savings, Anderson said, comes from Gov. Scott Walker allowing districts to shop around for a better price.
“We used the tools in that we could bid the insurance,” Anderson said. “We were significantly below what the 12 percent (premium contribution) would be. We made a reduction bigger than 12 percent.”
Critics have said, however, the district could have cut its proposed tax levy increase by requiring teachers to pay up to 12 percent of their premiums in addition to the savings it experienced by switching providers.
In an interview Monday, Anderson said he researched the various plans offered by the state – and compared them with what BASD is offering its teachers and administrators this year.
By shopping around and getting a good bid from Humana, Anderson said the district’s cost is about $1 million under the lowest plans offered by Wisconsin Education Association Trust.
Anderson decided to explore the options being offered to various school districts in southeast Wisconsin, as well as all over the state.
The end result, he said, is that in spite of not asking teachers to pay part of the premium costs, Burlington’s health insurance costs are actually cheaper than if the district had gone with a state plan.
Anderson explained that because some of the plans offered by the Wisconsin Education Association are of low enough cost, those plans do not require a 12 percent premium payment by teachers.
-
-
-
-
-
School Board Interpretation:
We now have the ability to bid on our health insurance. We are now able to find health insurance coverage for $1 million less than our previous vendor. We don’t want to have it affect our educators and staff since they now have co-pays and higher deductibles then previous years.
Teachers and Staff Interpretation:
We already have to pay more deductibles and this is bothersome to us but we will live with it if I have to.
My Interpretation and other taxpayers:
For years Burlington School Board has been overpaying for insurance since that were told they HADE TO PURCAHSE from Wis. Education Assoc. Trust, now the lowest bid they accepted is already $1 million less. So for years already you have already paid at least $1 million more than necessary, and should still implement the 12% contribution to help increase the savings even more, and help reduce the tax levy.
Hint School Board this is what really happened:
You bought a TV from a WEAC, for $800 for many years. However, that same TV at a majority of other stores was already selling it for $475. Since you now decided to review your purchases and realize your product was overpriced already, and finally buy at normal price, is not a cost saving BUT previous overspending.
The arctile headline is misleading right from the start. Per Larry Anderson’s comment, the end result is that teachers are paying about 15 percent of their health insurance costs so to speak. So to speak? Where are the numbers to substantiate this absurb claim?
My interpretation would be that if a teacher actually used their entire deductible amount for a calendar year, then the cost could possibly be 15 percent more under the current insurance plan. The 15 percent claim assumes that dollars are actually spent. How about a younger teacher in good health that may only go to the doctor once per year for an annual physical? Are taxpayers supposed to believe that insurance costs in this example are 15 percent higher? Even a more extreme example, how about the teacher that does not go to doctor at all during the calendar year? In this example, since no dollars were spent on health care the higher deductible and copays do not even come into play. So to print an article that claims higher deductibles and copays amount to a 15 percent contribution is completely misleading at best and totally inaccurate at worst.
Fact of the matter is that the Burlington Area School Board is trying to justify not having the teachers pay 12.6 percent of their health insurance premiums. The school board party line is that by selecting Humana as the health insurance carrier, the cost savings is (apparently) greater than if the school board selected another carrier and had the teachers pay 12.6 perecent of their health insruance premiums. Interesting that selecting Humana and having the teachers pay 12.6 perecnt of their health insurance premiums has not been presented by the school board. This approach would eliminate the need to increase the tax levy 3.69 percent as currently proposed by the board.
Scott – I agree with your “School Board Interpretation” and “Teachers and Staff Interpretation”‘s. I differ with “Your interpretation” in that as you mentioned the district was mandated to purchase through WEAC so there was no option to cost compare. This the first opportunity all WI public school boards have had to shop for insurance. Remember, teachers are taxpayers as well. Property taxes are burdensome but we as property owners have chosen to invest in the future here in Burlington and taxes are required to fund the present and future operations. Right now I can’t afford to pay the total tax levy my family home is assessed each year (nearly 6K). We don’t have any other debt than the house and small car payment. Is this the teachers fault? I don’t hold them responsible for the lack of leadership that’s gotten us here.
Yes I’m angry too, but I believe the for-profit healthcare business is not the answer either. Cost containment is viewed very differently from the perspective of the CEO of Humana versus the mother of a sick child. Cynical I know. The answer I believe is to get to a place where everyone can be assured(not insured) of adequate preventative and restorative healthcare regardless of income level. Socialist maybe, but if we all keep paying more for less, which is what the teachers and you and I are doing everyday.
Then will all be working to fund the government anyway, right? I’m hoping to ask Paul Ryan for my own Federal Reserve Debit Card at the next local listening session. So maybe you could update your post to – My Interpretation and “some” other taxpayers: