The Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (O.P.B.A)
The SERB 2012 Report on Health Insurance Costs
The Research and Training Section of the State Employment Relations Board has released its annual report on the cost of health insurance in Ohio’s public sector. The 2012 report analyzes health care surveys completed by over 1,100 public employers in the state representing over 370,000 employees. Such amounts to an 84% employer participation rate that is very similar to past reports. The survey answers are representative of health care costs for employers and their employees as of January 1, 2012. The report is necessary reading for members of a negotiating committee as it offers useful comparative data and background information for numerous healthcare issues.
The statewide average for an employee’s share of the medical and prescription drug premium is 10.7% for single coverage and 11.5% for family coverage. In terms of actual dollars and cents, employees statewide are paying $55 per month for single coverage and $157 per month for family coverage. Among political subdivisions, employees of townships pay the least amount at approximately 5.5% of the premium for single coverage and 4.7% for family coverage. This translates into township employees paying $25 per month for single coverage and $64 per month for family coverage. Employees in cities are paying 8.4% for single coverage and 8.2% for family coverage. This amounts to city employees paying $43 per month for single coverage and $116 per month for family coverage. Employees of counties are paying 13.1% of the premium for single coverage and 14.3% of the premium for family coverage. These percentages require county employees with single coverage to pay $67 per month for single coverage and $198 per month for family coverage.
SERB also analyzes employee contributions by eight geographical regions in the state. Employees in the Dayton region pay the greatest share for medical and prescription drug insurance. Employees with single coverage in the Dayton region are paying 12.9% of the premium while employees with family coverage pay 14.2% of the premium. These employees are paying $65 per month for single coverage and $189 per month for family coverage. The employee share of the premium is least in the Warren/Youngstown region with employees contributing 6.3% of the premium for family coverage and 6.5% of the premium for single coverage. This equates to $34 per month for single coverage and $85 per month for family coverage.
It is also interesting to examine SERB’s report on medical plan design. The report identifies the number of medical plans by deductible amounts. Statewide, 30.3% of medical plans have deductibles for single in-network coverage in the amount of $100 or less, while 29.3% of the plans have deductibles for such coverage in an amount between $125 and $400. For in-network family coverage, 28.9% of plans statewide have deductibles in the amount of $200 or less, while 29.3% of the plans have deductibles between $250 and $800. After the deductible is reached, the percentage of costs paid by employees until they reach their out-of-pocket maximum amount is called co-insurance. 33.7% of plans statewide for in-network coverage do not require an employee co-insurance contribution while 31.2% of plans require a maximum employee co-insurance share of 10%. The statewide median out-of-pocket maximum amount for in-network coverage is $1,225 for single coverage and $2,500 for family coverage.
The SERB report also provides plan data for prescription drug costs. The statewide median co-pay amounts for a 30 day drug supply under the “three tier” option most common in Ohio are as follows: $10 for generic; $20 for brand and $40 for non-formulary brand. SERB notes, as explained herein, that the employee premium contribution for prescription drug coverage is figured into the employee’s medical insurance premium contribution in 86.6% of reporting jurisdictions.
While the employee contribution to health care costs is always of prime concern in labor negotiations, it is also useful to look at the history of premium costs for medical and prescription drug coverage. For 2012, the average premium for medical and prescription drug coverage statewide is $506 for single coverage and $1,339 for family coverage. This represents a 6.8% increase for single coverage and a 7.0% increase for family coverage. SERB shows in its report that from 1993 through 1999, premium increases were modest at around 4% per year. From 2000 through 2005, annual increases in premium amounts were close to 15%. Increases have appeared to moderate since then, as the increases for 2012 were the largest since 2006 for family coverage and 2005 for single coverage.
The report also touches on dental and vision insurance. When dental insurance is carved out from medical and prescription drug coverage and employees contribute to the premium, employees statewide are paying $4.50 per month for single coverage and $13.70 per month for family coverage. 61% of the jurisdictions have annual dental maximums of $1,000 per person. SERB notes that the plans can vary drastically with some employers reporting plans including $4,000 annual per person maximums. When vision insurance is carved out and an employee is required to contribute, the employee is statewide paying $2.48 per month for single coverage and $8.06 per month for family coverage.
Opt-out provisions are often discussed by employees in anticipation of negotiations. Under these provisions, employees are paid by the employer for not enrolling in the employer’s health insurance plan. According to the SERB report, opt-out provisions are offered statewide in 44% of jurisdictions. The average incentive payment for an employee opting-out of single coverage is $1,392 per year while the average incentive payment for an employee to opt-out of family coverage is $1,990 per year.
High Deductible Health Plans are becoming more popular across the state, as they now make up 22.3% of plans statewide, compared to 17% in 2011. When such plans are offered in conjunction with a Health Savings Account or Health Reimbursement Arrangement, 50% of employers annually contribute to the account of single coverage employees in an amount between $1,000 and $1,999. 14% of employers annually contribute to such accounts in an amount over $2,000, while 36% of employers contribute less than $1,000. For family coverage employees, 47% of employers annually contribute to such accounts in an amount between $2,000 and $3,499. 19% of employers annually contribute to such accounts in an amount over $3,500, while 34% of employers contribute less than $2,000.
I wrote a similar analysis for Police Beat of SERB’s 2010 report on the cost of health insurance in Ohio’s public sector. A comparison of 2010 report with the 2012 report does not evidence cause for alarm. Generally, whether by percentage or actual amounts, some averages of employee costs have modestly increased while others have remained constant or decreased. While we cannot control the employer’s objectives at the table, the SERB report on healthcare provides a tool to measure the reasonableness of both our position and the employer’s position relative to external comparability.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Meetings will be held on the following Thursdays:
November 7, 2013
Letters will be sent to directors and alternate directors confirming meeting location. Meetings begin at 7:30 p.m.
Meetings will be held on the following Thursdays:
October 3, 2013
December 5, 2013
Notices will be sent to police departments, directors and alternate directors confirming meeting location. Meetings begin at 7:30 p.m.
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
Are held at the O.P.B.A. Office. All Executive Board members are notified by phone or mail prior to the meetings.
Questions or problems?
Call the O.P.B.A. office at (440) 237-7900
Keep "The Promise".....Become a Member
by: Kathy Delaney
NAPO's Legislative Scorecard for Members of the 112th Congress from Ohio
HOUSE INTRODUCES BYRNE JAG REAUTHORIZATION
At the end of Fiscal Year 2012 the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG) will expire. Congress needs to reauthorize this program. Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA) introduced the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 6062) on June 29, 2012. This legislation currently has the support of eight members and was recently marked up in the House Judiciary Committee with favorable remarks by several members.
NAPO VICTORY: HOUSE PASSES PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ BENEFITS ACT OF 2012
On June 28, 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Improvements Act of 2012, (H.R 4018) by voice vote. NAPO supports this legislation as well as the Senate companion bill (S. 1696) sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS PROGRAM RECEIVES INCREASED FUNDING
Imagine flying on a plane without anyone on board to protect you in an emergency situation. By passing the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act in 2002, Congress provided pilots who are United States citizens and who fly passenger aircraft, private charter flights or cargo carriers the opportunity to apply for the Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING UPDATE
The Department of Homeland Security announced finalized funding levels for grant programs that are of importance to NAPO’s membership. The FY12 totals are the same as projected earlier this year. This year, DHS needed to make adjustments and prioritize certain grants over others due to the reduction of roughly $1 billion. Recipients of grants are directed to use money for sustaining capabilities. Investments in new capabilities are only for “deployable if needed to support regional and national efforts”.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT NAPO’S FIGHT FOR PUBLIC PENSIONS
With less than 100 days until November’s Presidential and Congressional elections, now is a good time to reflect on the status of public pensions and how they have been affected since 2010. Going forward NAPO will work to anticipate potential pension strategies and tactics beyond 2012.
HOUSE ADVANCES BORDER SECURITY LEGISLATION ON FEDERAL LANDS
The House of Representative passed the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, (H.R. 2578), a package of fourteen natural Resource Committee bills. Title 14 of the package included H.R. 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to have immediate access to any public lands managed by the Federal Government for purposes of securing borders.
THE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING PROGRAM AWARDS FY12 COPS HIRING GRANTS
The COPS Office announced the FY12 COPS Hiring Grant recipients. More than $111 million was awarded to local public safety agencies in 220 cities and counties. The grants will fund over 600 new law enforcement positions and save an additional 200 positions recently lost or in jeopardy of being cut due to local budget cuts.
By: Thomas Austin, Executive Secretary
Isn’t it amazing how time flies. It was only nine short months ago that we were working to reject SB 5 and Issue 2. Today’s political climate has not improved since last November and the attacks on the public sector worker and the middle class continue. However, the OPBA’s Endorsement Committee has been hard at work. The committee consists of Executive Director Jeff Pedicino, Executive Secretary Tom Austin (Twinsburg Police Department) and Trustee Brian Johnston (Geauga County Sheriff’s Office). The committee, along with Justice Andrew Douglas have designed and implemented a system in which each political candidate requesting the OPBA’s endorsement must answer a series of 14 questions:
1. What office are you seeking?
2. Why do you seek the endorsement of the O.P.B.A.?
3. Do you have an opponent? If the answer is “yes,” please identify your opponent by name and explain why you would be the better choice.
4. Public safety depends upon the ability of the law enforcement community to combat crime. To do this effectively, law enforcement personnel must have rights protecting their safety and compensation and benefits that is both reasonable and competitive to sustain themselves and their families. To these ends, please respond to each of the following questions.
A. Do you and/or will you support a law which provides that the personal information (home address, spouse’s name, children, telephone numbers) of law enforcement officers and associated law enforcement personnel is exempt from the Ohio Public Records law, R.C. 149.43?
B. Do you and/or will you support a law which makes it a crime to knowingly make a false complaint against a police officer?
C. Do you believe that a police officer has the same right of self defense as all other citizens?
D. Do you believe that all law enforcement officers should be afforded minimum due process before being fired or disciplined as a result of a citizen’s complaint?
E. Do you believe that law enforcement personnel should have the right to join a union and collectively bargain to obtain their just rights and goals?
F. Ohio’s Collective Bargaining Law is codified in Chapter 4117 of the Ohio Revised Code. Recently this law came under attack. Do you support the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Law? If elected, would you oppose any effort to substantially change or repeal the law including the provision that provides for final and binding conciliation for law enforcement officers?
G. In the past, law enforcement officers have given up wage increases in exchange for improved pension benefits. Will you oppose all but reasonable changes in public employee pension benefits?
H. Do you believe that health care coverage for law enforcement officers should be provided by the officer’s employer so long as the employee pays a reasonable portion of the premium?
5. Do you believe that an employer should provide for full funding for bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers?
6. Are you in favor of or opposed to placing public pensions under the Social Security system? Will you decline to support any legislation proposing such an effort?”
7. Recently Issue 2 (S.B. 5) was defeated. If any legislation attacking collective bargaining rights was again proposed, would you publicly express your disapproval of such efforts?
8. Do you support health care coverage for law enforcement retirees?
9. What is your position, in criminal and civil proceedings, on supporting the exclusion of statements made by officers after being advised of their “Garrity Rights”?
10. Recently some persons have proposed a Right to Work law for Ohio. Are you for or against such a law? If against, will you publicly state your position?
11. Do you oppose the imposition of the death penalty for those individuals convicted of murdering a law enforcement officer?
12. Do you support the elimination of specific restrictions that currently exist on concealed carry permit holders that could endanger those in law enforcement?
13. Is there anything else you would like to add that would assist us in determining whether you should be endorsed by the O.P.B.A and its membership?
14. Completing this form is a requirement before a personal screening takes place. If you have met this requirement, are you willing to appear before the Screening Committee of the O.P.B.A.?
As of August 1, 2012, the following have received the endorsement of the OPBA: Ohio Supreme Court Justice Yvette McGee Brown, Justice Terrence O’Donnell and Justice Robert Cupp; Ohio Senator Tom Patton, District 24; and Representative Tom Warren, District 76.
The OPBA is committed to its members and will hold endorsed candidates responsible for how they respond to the OPBA questionnaire and vote on laws associated to their answers. One case that comes to mind is Ohio State Representative Mike Dovilla, a Republican from the 18th District. Former Executive Director Terry Gallagher issued an endorsement on behalf of the OPBA. This endorsement was based in part on an answer that Representative Dovilla supported the right to collectively bargain. During the SB5 battle, the OPBA found Representative Dovilla voted with his party line and in favor of SB5. The OPBA contacted Representative Dovilla and advised if he did not change his position on SB5 when it became Issue 2 his endorsement would be revoked. Representative Dovilla did not change his vote on Issue 2 and the endorsement was revoked.
Well, guess who is up for re-election now – Representative Dovilla. Please keep this type of information in mind when you cast your ballot in Representative Dovilla’s district or for others who may have voted against our profession in SB5/Issue 2.
As always, please know that your endorsement committee is here to represent the OPBA’s membership interests at the Ohio State and United States levels of government. Please continue to monitor OPBA.com for further endorsements. Finally, as many of you proudly displayed the bumper sticker during SB5/Issue 2 stating “We’ll Remember in November”, please again make sure your voice is heard by voting this November.
Beachwood PD Giving Competitve Test For Entry Level Police Officer
Beachwood Police Department
The Beachwood Police Department is an equal opportunity employer.
FOR THE ENTRY LEVEL POSITION OF POLICE PATROL OFFICER