UPEA attended a performance audit by the Legislative Auditor General on the Utah State Parks. The audit focused on measures to cut funding to state parks or eliminate some state parks altogether. Legislators are looking to make state parks more self sustaining and less dependent on the General Fund.
The Department of Natural Resources responded by saying they are taking a pro active approach to the audit and will try and find ways in which they can be more self sufficient. The department also state that state parks rough generate $67 million to the economy.
The audit will be sent to the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriation Subcommittee for further review. UPEA will be tracking this issue during the legislative session.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Paid Time Off May Replace Leave Programs
The Executive Appropriations Committee met on November 16th to discuss sick and annual leave benefits versus paid time off or (PTO). The committee heard a presentation on the differences between the two options and the fiscal impact of going to a PTO system. As of this moment, a bill has not been presented to the legislature for consideration. However, it is being discussed as a potential cost-saving measure. UPEA will continue to track this issue throughout the upcoming legislative session. For further information, including a copy of the report, please visit http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2010&Com=APPEXE.
Over the course of the past decade, several private entities have changed how their annual and sick leave systems work in an effort to streamline their leave programs. Many companies moved to a Paid Time Off (PTO) System that does not differentiate between sick and vacation leave. Employees are given a set number of hours a year that they may use in whatever manner they wish. If they do not get sick, they can use it all as vacation time. However, if they are sick frequently, PTO may end up being used for that purpose.
Such a system differs somewhat from the current system that state employees enjoy. Currently each employee receives a certain number of annual leave hours and sick leave hours, based on their years of service. Annual leave must be scheduled ahead of time and can be used for vacations, personal matters, etc. Sick leave can be used when an individual is ill or needs to go to a doctor’s appointment.
State employees also have a great benefit that they may use upon retirement. An employee may save their pre-2006 sick leave hours to purchase health insurance. Sick leave hours earned after 2006 can be cashed in upon retirement to be placed into a health savings account to use toward medical purchases. This benefit has been instrumental in helping productivity in the state of Utah, and ensuring that employees use their sick leave wisely.
Would a PTO program take away from this benefit? At this time, it is not known. However, UPEA is currently concerned about such a program because of the effect it might have on the current Sick Leave Benefit upon retirement. Also, if it does not impact current employees, will it be just for new employees? While UPEA is still seeking answers to this question, it is still cause for anxiety.
Many studies have indicated that when a company has moved to a PTO-based system, the leave hours given to employees has dropped, or cannot be carried over from year-to-year. UPEA’s concern is that employees will be negatively impacted by such a move. The report presented to the committee suggested lowering the amount of PTO hours that employees could earn to 130 hours per year. A current employee with less than five years of service earns 208 hours per year in both sick and annual leave.
UPEA is continually keeping in contact with legislators and other policy-makers that may potentially be close to this issue to ensure employees are protected and maintain the best benefits possible. As more information develops, UPEA will send emails or additional communications to its members.
Over the course of the past decade, several private entities have changed how their annual and sick leave systems work in an effort to streamline their leave programs. Many companies moved to a Paid Time Off (PTO) System that does not differentiate between sick and vacation leave. Employees are given a set number of hours a year that they may use in whatever manner they wish. If they do not get sick, they can use it all as vacation time. However, if they are sick frequently, PTO may end up being used for that purpose.
Such a system differs somewhat from the current system that state employees enjoy. Currently each employee receives a certain number of annual leave hours and sick leave hours, based on their years of service. Annual leave must be scheduled ahead of time and can be used for vacations, personal matters, etc. Sick leave can be used when an individual is ill or needs to go to a doctor’s appointment.
State employees also have a great benefit that they may use upon retirement. An employee may save their pre-2006 sick leave hours to purchase health insurance. Sick leave hours earned after 2006 can be cashed in upon retirement to be placed into a health savings account to use toward medical purchases. This benefit has been instrumental in helping productivity in the state of Utah, and ensuring that employees use their sick leave wisely.
Would a PTO program take away from this benefit? At this time, it is not known. However, UPEA is currently concerned about such a program because of the effect it might have on the current Sick Leave Benefit upon retirement. Also, if it does not impact current employees, will it be just for new employees? While UPEA is still seeking answers to this question, it is still cause for anxiety.
Many studies have indicated that when a company has moved to a PTO-based system, the leave hours given to employees has dropped, or cannot be carried over from year-to-year. UPEA’s concern is that employees will be negatively impacted by such a move. The report presented to the committee suggested lowering the amount of PTO hours that employees could earn to 130 hours per year. A current employee with less than five years of service earns 208 hours per year in both sick and annual leave.
UPEA is continually keeping in contact with legislators and other policy-makers that may potentially be close to this issue to ensure employees are protected and maintain the best benefits possible. As more information develops, UPEA will send emails or additional communications to its members.
Friday, October 22, 2010
High Deductible Health Plan in Works?
The Legislative Health and Human Services Interim Committee gathered together on 20 October, 2010 to discuss the State Employee Health Insurance plans. Senator Chris Buttars brought in Don Ruzicka, an independent insurance broker, to explain a proposed health insurance option for state employees.
Ruzicka discussed the costs associated with the current insurance plans that include co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance payments, premiums, and out of pocket maximums, stating that it is very complicated and continues to get more and more expensive year after year. The 3rd party pay system that is currently in place is not cost effective and incentivizes overutilization.
In his statement about what he sees as a marketable plan for the state, Ruzicka discussed a Qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) that would simplify insurance and create positive incentives for health lifestyles and be more cost effective. In the HDHP, Ruzicka stated that the deductible would be somewhere around $2500 for an individual and $5000 for a family. After the deductible is met the co-insurance payment would be 100%, meaning that any additional costs exceeding the deductible would be covered.
In addition, a Medical Reimbursement Fund (MRF) would be set up by the employer of $1000 for an individual and $2000 for a family to be used to cover some of the deductible costs. For employees to reach their deductible with this contribution, the most they would spend would be either $1500 or $2500. Also, if an individual did not use their full amount allotted in the Medical Reimbursement Fund, the employer could elect to provide a taxable bonus to the employee with the excess funds.
Ruzicka stated that the plan could save the state as much as a third of what is currently being spent on the traditional plan.
When asked if a bill was going to be run to implement such a plan, Senator Buttars mentioned that he may run a bill or try to implement some type of pilot program.
Representative Brad Daw asked what the difference was between this and a HDHP with a Health Savings Account (HSA). Ruzicka answered that the money is locked up into the HSA, where the MRF could provide positive incentives through a bonus program.
PEHP was listed on the agenda to provide comment on this plan, but was not given an opportunity to share their views in the committee.
UPEA has a seat on the Health System Reform cost Containment Workgroup that meets monthly. HDHP/HSA plans have been discussed extensively in the workgroup. UPEA is currently looking into different plan designs that would benefit state employees with multiple insurance options. If there are any questions, please contact Christy Cushing at ccushing@upea.net or (801) 264-8732 ext. 216.
Ruzicka discussed the costs associated with the current insurance plans that include co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance payments, premiums, and out of pocket maximums, stating that it is very complicated and continues to get more and more expensive year after year. The 3rd party pay system that is currently in place is not cost effective and incentivizes overutilization.
In his statement about what he sees as a marketable plan for the state, Ruzicka discussed a Qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) that would simplify insurance and create positive incentives for health lifestyles and be more cost effective. In the HDHP, Ruzicka stated that the deductible would be somewhere around $2500 for an individual and $5000 for a family. After the deductible is met the co-insurance payment would be 100%, meaning that any additional costs exceeding the deductible would be covered.
In addition, a Medical Reimbursement Fund (MRF) would be set up by the employer of $1000 for an individual and $2000 for a family to be used to cover some of the deductible costs. For employees to reach their deductible with this contribution, the most they would spend would be either $1500 or $2500. Also, if an individual did not use their full amount allotted in the Medical Reimbursement Fund, the employer could elect to provide a taxable bonus to the employee with the excess funds.
Ruzicka stated that the plan could save the state as much as a third of what is currently being spent on the traditional plan.
When asked if a bill was going to be run to implement such a plan, Senator Buttars mentioned that he may run a bill or try to implement some type of pilot program.
Representative Brad Daw asked what the difference was between this and a HDHP with a Health Savings Account (HSA). Ruzicka answered that the money is locked up into the HSA, where the MRF could provide positive incentives through a bonus program.
PEHP was listed on the agenda to provide comment on this plan, but was not given an opportunity to share their views in the committee.
UPEA has a seat on the Health System Reform cost Containment Workgroup that meets monthly. HDHP/HSA plans have been discussed extensively in the workgroup. UPEA is currently looking into different plan designs that would benefit state employees with multiple insurance options. If there are any questions, please contact Christy Cushing at ccushing@upea.net or (801) 264-8732 ext. 216.
UPEA Acts on ORS GAP Report Concerns
Over the course of the past few months, UPEA staff has been working with the Office of Recovery Services (ORS) employees and management regarding a new productivity measurement. ORS began tracking activity within certain computer programs in July, to measure activity and productivity. The measurement, termed GAP time, was applied to each employee’s job plan to maximize the use of resources to accomplish ORS objectives. As a result of not meeting the GAP measurements, several telecommuting employees were moved back to the office, while others lost their exercise privileges.
Despite 6 months of the ORS administration educating employees of the upcoming changes, with the implementation of the GAP report in July, many ORS employees became very concerned with their performance objectives. Several individuals expressed a lack of knowledge about the changes and altered their work habits in a manner that was not conducive to a comfortable work environment, which created low morale within the agency.
UPEA took the concerns of ORS employees to Department of Human Services Executive Director, Palmer Depaulis. In addition, Association staff member, Kory Cox, spoke to the Director of ORS and held a meeting to bring employee concerns to the table.
On 10/12/10, the GAP report was removed as a component of an employee job plan. While the GAP report will no longer be a performance objective on the annual performance plan, it will still be measured as a monitoring tool to ensure employees remain effective and productive. This news came as a welcome gesture, as it will ease many employee concerns and will allow individuals to concentrate on productive behaviors in the workplace, while not needing to manipulate their jobs in an unhealthy matter.
UPEA advises that ORS employees continue to document time away from their desks, and report mid-day personal leave time to their supervisors. The Association supports creating a positive work environment and believes that the change in measuring GAP time will improve employee morale.
UPEA encourages employees to work toward attaining a positive attitude toward future GAP measurements and other changes that may come as a result of the tough economic times. It is important, especially in this difficult economy and budget year, that state employees create value in their employment, perform their jobs, and become indispensible in their public employment.
Despite 6 months of the ORS administration educating employees of the upcoming changes, with the implementation of the GAP report in July, many ORS employees became very concerned with their performance objectives. Several individuals expressed a lack of knowledge about the changes and altered their work habits in a manner that was not conducive to a comfortable work environment, which created low morale within the agency.
UPEA took the concerns of ORS employees to Department of Human Services Executive Director, Palmer Depaulis. In addition, Association staff member, Kory Cox, spoke to the Director of ORS and held a meeting to bring employee concerns to the table.
On 10/12/10, the GAP report was removed as a component of an employee job plan. While the GAP report will no longer be a performance objective on the annual performance plan, it will still be measured as a monitoring tool to ensure employees remain effective and productive. This news came as a welcome gesture, as it will ease many employee concerns and will allow individuals to concentrate on productive behaviors in the workplace, while not needing to manipulate their jobs in an unhealthy matter.
UPEA advises that ORS employees continue to document time away from their desks, and report mid-day personal leave time to their supervisors. The Association supports creating a positive work environment and believes that the change in measuring GAP time will improve employee morale.
UPEA encourages employees to work toward attaining a positive attitude toward future GAP measurements and other changes that may come as a result of the tough economic times. It is important, especially in this difficult economy and budget year, that state employees create value in their employment, perform their jobs, and become indispensible in their public employment.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Recommendation: Don't Privatize
The Utah Public Employees Association attended the Executive Appropriations today at 1:00 p.m. at the Utah State Capitol. The Public Consulting Group presented data on the feasibility of privatizing the Forensic Unit at the State Hospital; the privatization of the Woodland building; and privatization of the Transitional Living Center at the Utah State Developmental Center. The study focused on three areas of feasibility: Financial savings, organization and service consequences.
The study results for the USH Forensic Unit found $1.7 million in savings due to reductions in employee total compensation. However, an increase in staff turnover could negativity impact continuity and quality care for patients.
The USDC TLC & Woodland units would save $117,000 in gross savings through privatization. Savings from reductions to employee total compensation would increase staff turnover. However, it would also negatively impact continuity and quality care for patients.
The recommendation from the study is that it may be financially possible to privatize the units for a cost savings, but reductions in employee total compensation can adversely affect continuity and quality care for patients. The recommendation made by Public Consulting Group is that the privatization of the USH Forensic Unit and USDC Semi – secure Units should not be pursued.
Todd Losser
UPEA Representative
The study results for the USH Forensic Unit found $1.7 million in savings due to reductions in employee total compensation. However, an increase in staff turnover could negativity impact continuity and quality care for patients.
The USDC TLC & Woodland units would save $117,000 in gross savings through privatization. Savings from reductions to employee total compensation would increase staff turnover. However, it would also negatively impact continuity and quality care for patients.
The recommendation from the study is that it may be financially possible to privatize the units for a cost savings, but reductions in employee total compensation can adversely affect continuity and quality care for patients. The recommendation made by Public Consulting Group is that the privatization of the USH Forensic Unit and USDC Semi – secure Units should not be pursued.
Todd Losser
UPEA Representative
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
UPEA Endorses Herbert for Governor
Salt Lake City - The Utah Public Employees’ Association has announced their endorsement for Governor Gary Herbert and Lieutenant Governor, Greg Bell, during a press conference on Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
The Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA) is Utah’s largest representative of public employees. Founded in 1959, UPEA has a history of selecting and endorsing political candidates based upon their willingness to work with public employees. Governor Herbert demonstrated this willingness and dedication to public employees during the 2010 Legislative session.
The association typically avoids endorsements based on political affiliation.
Jeff Horrocks, Chairman of the UPEA CAPE Committee, said, “Political affiliation often plays a role in labor politics, but UPEA carefully analyzes candidates’ willingness to meet with employees and address their concerns before offering an endorsement.”
The association’s Citizen Action by Public Employees, or CAPE, Committee voted to endorse Governor Herbert after interviewing both candidates. In addition, CAPE also reviewed the candidates’ running mates for Lieutenant Governor, which made a significant impact on the association’s endorsement.
Horrocks said, “State employees have already benefited from Governor Herbert and Lieutenant Governor Bell’s approach to managing the State’s workforce.”
Horrocks added, “Governor Herbert has given employees fair consideration during the 2010 Legislative Session. The Utah Public Employees’ Association values his experience and his fairness in managing Utah’s workforce.”
The Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA) is Utah’s largest representative of public employees. Founded in 1959, UPEA has a history of selecting and endorsing political candidates based upon their willingness to work with public employees. Governor Herbert demonstrated this willingness and dedication to public employees during the 2010 Legislative session.
The association typically avoids endorsements based on political affiliation.
Jeff Horrocks, Chairman of the UPEA CAPE Committee, said, “Political affiliation often plays a role in labor politics, but UPEA carefully analyzes candidates’ willingness to meet with employees and address their concerns before offering an endorsement.”
The association’s Citizen Action by Public Employees, or CAPE, Committee voted to endorse Governor Herbert after interviewing both candidates. In addition, CAPE also reviewed the candidates’ running mates for Lieutenant Governor, which made a significant impact on the association’s endorsement.
Horrocks said, “State employees have already benefited from Governor Herbert and Lieutenant Governor Bell’s approach to managing the State’s workforce.”
Horrocks added, “Governor Herbert has given employees fair consideration during the 2010 Legislative Session. The Utah Public Employees’ Association values his experience and his fairness in managing Utah’s workforce.”
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Career Service Audit, Unexpected Conclusions
The Legislative Auditor General conducted an audit of the State's Career Service System to address legislators' concerns that poor-performing employees are difficult to dismiss. The audit highlighted Florida, Georgia and Texas as states that have limited merit systems, but failed to conclude whether or not Utah would benefit from a change.
The audit did conclude that managers have used poor judgement while conducting performance evaluations and while implementing discipline for employees. One glaring example from the presenter's PowerPoint showed an employee who was disciplined for downloading 52 pornographic images on a state computer, in violation of the IT Acceptable Use Policy. The employee was rated "successful" in an evaluation, despite the blatant violation.
Committee members commented that the audit highlights poor training of managers and the failure of management to use built-in discipline measures. Representative Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, went so far to say that the merit system was not on the chopping block, but that he would personally take action if DHRM cannot address the management issues raised by the audit.
UPEA believes that the years of hard work and relationship building with legislators regarding this specific issue, contributed to the positive comments regarding state employees and the merit system. While no action was taken specifically with the audit, the Committee sent the review to the Government Operations and Political Subdivisions interim committee for their input. UPEA will continue to monitor the Career Service Status issue as further information arises.
The recommendations of the audit included:
The Legislature consider the following options regarding the state’s career service system:
Maintain the current system with improvements.
***Adopt a procedure similar to that in the judicial branch, in which an employee could be dismissed after being formally disciplined twice.
***Implement changes that have been made in other states, including the following:
***Phasing out career service status for supervisors and higher positions.
***Phasing out career service status for employees who change positions within the state system.
***Requiring all new employees to be hired at will.
***State agencies require all new managers to attend the DHRM training course on how to be effective managers.
***DHRM place greater emphasis on encouraging all managers in the state to attend their training course “The Art and Science of Supervision.”
***DHRM consider whether management training should be required for all managers in the state.
***DHRM ensure all agency managers use Utah Performance Management.
Committee Still Favors 4-Tens Despite Audit
UPEA Officers and Employee Representatives are currently attending the Audit Subcommittee Meeting. Committee members are currently discussing the 4-Tens Work Week audit.
Representative Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, stood up for employees after auditors lambasted flexible schedule benefits found in the 4-Tens work week. He said, "I don't want to connote that well intentioned benefits encourage the proverbial UDOT worker leaning on a shovel. I would want [the Executive Branch] to take a conscientious look at policy."
Clark agreed that productivity needs to be measured and decisions made on metrics.
Lietentant Governor, Greg Bell, highlighted increasing workloads and decreasing budgets to emphasize how employees have increased productivty through "doing more with less."
Overall, the audit called for better measurements and flexibility within government to address customers' needs. The audit did not recommend eliminating 4-Tens and the committee complimented the Executive Branch for addressing the program.
More to come as it happens.
Representative Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, stood up for employees after auditors lambasted flexible schedule benefits found in the 4-Tens work week. He said, "I don't want to connote that well intentioned benefits encourage the proverbial UDOT worker leaning on a shovel. I would want [the Executive Branch] to take a conscientious look at policy."
Clark agreed that productivity needs to be measured and decisions made on metrics.
Lietentant Governor, Greg Bell, highlighted increasing workloads and decreasing budgets to emphasize how employees have increased productivty through "doing more with less."
Overall, the audit called for better measurements and flexibility within government to address customers' needs. The audit did not recommend eliminating 4-Tens and the committee complimented the Executive Branch for addressing the program.
More to come as it happens.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Legislative Audit of Merit System
UPEA was recently apprised of an audit that was conducted regarding the Career Service System, or Merit System. The report will be presented in the Legislative Audit Subcommittee tomorrow afternoon. According to our sources the Legislative Auditor’s Office may make recommendations to change the merit status of state employees. The report includes several options regarding implementation of a new career service system.
If you are able to attend the meeting, we would encourage you to do so on your own time.
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Time: 1:30 PM
Place: 250 State Capitol Bldg.
This will be an educational opportunity since the Audit Subcommittee has not accounted for public comment on the agenda. UPEA will also provide an update after the meeting.
This is a serious matter that affects all public employees and will be taken into account with any future political endorsements.
If you are able to attend the meeting, we would encourage you to do so on your own time.
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Time: 1:30 PM
Place: 250 State Capitol Bldg.
This will be an educational opportunity since the Audit Subcommittee has not accounted for public comment on the agenda. UPEA will also provide an update after the meeting.
This is a serious matter that affects all public employees and will be taken into account with any future political endorsements.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
UPEA Changes in Utah State Bulletin
The changes that UPEA requested in the DHRM rules as noted in the blog posting dated June 17th, 2010 can be found in the Utah State Bulletin linked here. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact UPEA.
Monday, June 21, 2010
UPEA met with PEHP to discuss Federal Health Care Reform
Last week UPEA met with PEHP to learn how federal health care reform will potentially affect PEHP. Through reading the two federal health care bills, PEHP has speculated how the mandates will probably affect them and if there will be additional costs. PEHP does not yet know what those additional costs will be, as that is still being determined. UPEA will continue to stay updated regarding this issue.
The two federal health care reform bills are: the Senate Bill - Patient Protection Affordable Care Act - signed 3/23/2010 and the House Bill - Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - signed 3/30/2010.
The purpose of these two health care bills are to improve access to health care. There are several mandates within the bills, and some of these mandates apply to only grandfathered plans, new plans or both. A grandfathered health insurance plan is a plan that existed before 3/23/2010 and does not make significant changes to their plan to lose grandfathered status. PEHP currently believes they are a grandfathered plan; however they have not yet been informed of their status.
Grandfathered Plan Mandates:
After 9/23/2010
1. No pre-existing condition exclusion for children under the age of 19.
The two federal health care reform bills are: the Senate Bill - Patient Protection Affordable Care Act - signed 3/23/2010 and the House Bill - Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 - signed 3/30/2010.
The purpose of these two health care bills are to improve access to health care. There are several mandates within the bills, and some of these mandates apply to only grandfathered plans, new plans or both. A grandfathered health insurance plan is a plan that existed before 3/23/2010 and does not make significant changes to their plan to lose grandfathered status. PEHP currently believes they are a grandfathered plan; however they have not yet been informed of their status.
Grandfathered Plan Mandates:
After 9/23/2010
1. No pre-existing condition exclusion for children under the age of 19.
- Currently PEHP requires a 9 month waiting period.
- This will be an additional cost for PEHP.
2. Two types of limits on benefits:
- No lifetime limits on dollar value benefits or type of care
- Only allowed "reasonable" lifetime or annual limits on nonessential benefits.
- PEHP plans to change to annual limits for both types of changes to keep this as cost neutral as possible.
3. Dependent children will be allowed to stay covered on employee health insurance plan until age 26, regardless of whether or no they are a dependent. This does not apply to the child if they have their own group coverage.
- Spouses or dependents of the dependent are not covered, only the dependent child.
- Only allowed to be added to insurance plan at the insurance carrier's open enrollment date.
- This will be an additional cost to PEHP.
4. No recession or termination of coverage without prior notice, with the exception for intentional misrepresentation or fraud.
- Does not apply to PEHP.
After 1/1/2011
1. Underwriting conditions - 85% threshold required for large employers (employers of 50 or more employees).
- If a plan falls below the threshold in a year, the plan shall refund premiums to employees on a pro-rated basis.
- This should not affect PEHP, as PEHP is a self-funded plan, always within 90% threshold.
After 3/23/2012
1. PEHP will be required to provide uniform summary plan description.
- Content and format required by statue.
- Must provide notice no later than 60 days notice to a change in plan.
- PEHP is not affected.
After 1/1/2014
1. No waiting period larger than 90 days, for every one of all ages.
- This will be an additional cost to PEHP.
2. No pre-existing exclusion may be applied to all, at any age.
- This will be an additional cost to PEHP.
3. Essential benefits can no longer have lifetime limits, only reasonable annul limits.
- PEHP is trying to keep costs neutral.
4. Dependent coverage required up to age 26, even if they are eligible for another insurance plan.
- This will be an additional cost to PEHP.
Government Plan Issue - Effective Immediately
Health Insurance plans for government employees can choose to be exempt from four federal health care regulations, including the Mental Health Parity Act, Women's Cancer Right's Act, the Newborn Act and Michelle's Law. Currently PEHP complies with all of these federal laws with the exception of the Mental Health Parity Act. Amendments made to this part of the federal health care reform bills do not clarify if government plans will have to comply with all four of these specific health care regulations. PEHP is waiting for an answer as they are currently unsure whether or not they will have to comply with the Mental Health Parity Act. If so, this would be an additional cost to PEHP.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
UPEA's Work Brings Results
Changes have recently been announced by the Department of Human Resource Management this week. The changes will be reflected in the next Utah State Bulletin (7/1/2010) and will go into effect in August. Many of the modifications were made as a result of the hearing that UPEA requested.
The substantive rule amendments that UPEA influenced include:
R477-1-1
(50) Highly Sensitive Position: A position approved by DHRM that includes the performance of:
(a) safety sensitive functions:
(i) requiring an employee to operate a commercial motor vehicle under 49 CFR 383 (January 18, 2006);
(ii) directly related to law enforcement;
(iii) involving direct access or having control over direct access to controlled substances;
(iv) directly impacting the safety or welfare of the general public;
(v) requiring an employee to carry or have access to firearms; or
(b) data sensitive functions permitting or requiring an employee to access an individual's highly sensitive, personally identifiable, private information, including:
(i) financial assets, liabilities, and account information;
(ii) social security numbers;
(iii) wage information;
(iv) medical history;
(v) public assistance benefits; or
(vi) [household composition; or
(vii) ]driver license
UPEA requested that “household composition” be removed or defined as the term is very vague and could be interpreted in a number of ways.
R477-4-4
(a) All recruitment announcements shall include the following:
(i) Information about the DHRM approved recruitment and selection system; and
(ii) opening and closing dates.
(b) Recruitments for career service positions shall be posted for a minimum of seven calendar days.
UPEA requested that this information be added back into the rule so as to ensure that the hiring process is outlined in rule.
R477-15
It is the State of Utah's policy to provide all employees a working environment that is free from discrimination and harassment based on race, religion, national origin, color, gender, age, disability, or protected activity or class under state and federal law.
UPEA requested that discrimination be added back into the rule as discrimination can occur without harassment. It is important that this is verbalized in the rule.
UPEA was very instrumental in making these positive changes. UPEA is grateful to DHRM for listening to the concerns of our organization and for their ongoing communication with the Association.
The substantive rule amendments that UPEA influenced include:
R477-1-1
(50) Highly Sensitive Position: A position approved by DHRM that includes the performance of:
(a) safety sensitive functions:
(i) requiring an employee to operate a commercial motor vehicle under 49 CFR 383 (January 18, 2006);
(ii) directly related to law enforcement;
(iii) involving direct access or having control over direct access to controlled substances;
(iv) directly impacting the safety or welfare of the general public;
(v) requiring an employee to carry or have access to firearms; or
(b) data sensitive functions permitting or requiring an employee to access an individual's highly sensitive, personally identifiable, private information, including:
(i) financial assets, liabilities, and account information;
(ii) social security numbers;
(iii) wage information;
(iv) medical history;
(v) public assistance benefits; or
(vi) [
UPEA requested that “household composition” be removed or defined as the term is very vague and could be interpreted in a number of ways.
R477-4-4
(a) All recruitment announcements shall include the following:
(i) Information about the DHRM approved recruitment and selection system; and
(ii) opening and closing dates.
(b) Recruitments for career service positions shall be posted for a minimum of seven calendar days.
UPEA requested that this information be added back into the rule so as to ensure that the hiring process is outlined in rule.
R477-15
It is the State of Utah's policy to provide all employees a working environment that is free from discrimination and harassment based on race, religion, national origin, color, gender, age, disability, or protected activity or class under state and federal law.
UPEA requested that discrimination be added back into the rule as discrimination can occur without harassment. It is important that this is verbalized in the rule.
UPEA was very instrumental in making these positive changes. UPEA is grateful to DHRM for listening to the concerns of our organization and for their ongoing communication with the Association.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Paid Time Off May Replace Leave Programs
Since the legislative session ended in March, UPEA has been hard at work trying to make sure we stay ahead of the curve when it comes to possible legislation affecting public employees. Through UPEA’s contacts and legislators UPEA staff hears of budget, health insurance, and many issues prior to any action being taken up on Capitol Hill. Some discussions come to fruition and others don’t. This year we have heard rumor of another piece of legislation that may affect public employees – PTO.
Over the course of the past decade, several private entities have changed how their annual and sick leave systems work in an effort to streamline their leave programs. Many companies moved to a Paid Time Off (PTO) System that does not differentiate between sick and vacation leave. Employees are given a set number of hours a year that they may use in whatever manner they wish. If they do not get sick, they can use it all as vacation time. However, if they are sick frequently, vacation may not be an option.
Currently, each employee receives a certain number of annual leave hours and sick leave hours, based on their years of service. Annual leave must be scheduled ahead of time and can be used for vacations, personal matters, etc. Sick leave can be used when an individual is ill, needs to go to a doctor’s appointment, or just needs a “mental health” day.
State employees also have a great benefit that they may use upon retirement. An employee may save their pre-2006 sick leave hours to purchase health insurance. Sick leave hours earned after 2006 can be cashed in upon retirement to be placed into a health savings account to use toward medical purchases.
This benefit has been instrumental in helping productivity in the state of Utah, and ensuring that employees use their sick leave wisely.
Would a PTO program take away from this benefit?
At this time, it is not known. However, UPEA is currently concerned about such a program because it may affect current Sick Leave Benefit upon retirement.
Also, if it does not impact current employees, will it be just for new employees? While UPEA is still seeking answers to this question, it is cause for anxiety.
Many studies have indicated that when a company has moved to a PTO-based system, that the leave hours given to employees has dropped, or cannot be carried over from year-to-year. UPEA’s concern is that employees will be negatively impacted by such a move.
UPEA is continually keeping in contact with legislators and other policy-makers that may potentially be close to this issue to ensure employees are protected and maintain the best benefits possible. As more information develops, UPEA will send emails or additional communications to its members.
Over the course of the past decade, several private entities have changed how their annual and sick leave systems work in an effort to streamline their leave programs. Many companies moved to a Paid Time Off (PTO) System that does not differentiate between sick and vacation leave. Employees are given a set number of hours a year that they may use in whatever manner they wish. If they do not get sick, they can use it all as vacation time. However, if they are sick frequently, vacation may not be an option.
Currently, each employee receives a certain number of annual leave hours and sick leave hours, based on their years of service. Annual leave must be scheduled ahead of time and can be used for vacations, personal matters, etc. Sick leave can be used when an individual is ill, needs to go to a doctor’s appointment, or just needs a “mental health” day.
State employees also have a great benefit that they may use upon retirement. An employee may save their pre-2006 sick leave hours to purchase health insurance. Sick leave hours earned after 2006 can be cashed in upon retirement to be placed into a health savings account to use toward medical purchases.
This benefit has been instrumental in helping productivity in the state of Utah, and ensuring that employees use their sick leave wisely.
Would a PTO program take away from this benefit?
At this time, it is not known. However, UPEA is currently concerned about such a program because it may affect current Sick Leave Benefit upon retirement.
Also, if it does not impact current employees, will it be just for new employees? While UPEA is still seeking answers to this question, it is cause for anxiety.
Many studies have indicated that when a company has moved to a PTO-based system, that the leave hours given to employees has dropped, or cannot be carried over from year-to-year. UPEA’s concern is that employees will be negatively impacted by such a move.
UPEA is continually keeping in contact with legislators and other policy-makers that may potentially be close to this issue to ensure employees are protected and maintain the best benefits possible. As more information develops, UPEA will send emails or additional communications to its members.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
UPEA is Hard at Work – Protecting your Rights
On June 8th, 2010, UPEA staff and representatives presented at a DHRM Hearing that UPEA requested regarding proposed rule changes that are to go into effect on July 1st.
UPEA shared concerns regarding rule changes including modifications to the recruitment, highly sensitive position, employee development, and discrimination and harassment policies.
UPEA staff insisted that employees are concerned that job positions continue to be recruited through a "competitive" and transparent process as this is a core merit principle.
UPEA and DHRM staff held a healthy discussion on the highly sensitive positions and information regarding "household composition" being added. UPEA requested that this term either be removed or defined as it is vague in nature.
While no changes were made immediately, DHRM staff expressed a willingness to look at and change a few items that were discussed. It will remain to be seen what actually gets some attention.
As an additional note, because of the efforts of UPEA - with regard to the DHRM rule changes, a section was added into the rule that allowed RIF’d employees that were rehired within a year to reinstate their Program I Sick Leave hours rather than having them all go back to Program II Sick Leave. This benefits employees as they will be able to use earned Program I hours upon retirement.
UPEA shared concerns regarding rule changes including modifications to the recruitment, highly sensitive position, employee development, and discrimination and harassment policies.
UPEA staff insisted that employees are concerned that job positions continue to be recruited through a "competitive" and transparent process as this is a core merit principle.
UPEA and DHRM staff held a healthy discussion on the highly sensitive positions and information regarding "household composition" being added. UPEA requested that this term either be removed or defined as it is vague in nature.
While no changes were made immediately, DHRM staff expressed a willingness to look at and change a few items that were discussed. It will remain to be seen what actually gets some attention.
As an additional note, because of the efforts of UPEA - with regard to the DHRM rule changes, a section was added into the rule that allowed RIF’d employees that were rehired within a year to reinstate their Program I Sick Leave hours rather than having them all go back to Program II Sick Leave. This benefits employees as they will be able to use earned Program I hours upon retirement.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Federal Health Care Reform & Public Employees
Federal Health Care Reform & Public Employees
Friday, May 21, 2010
12:00 – 1:00
Presentation by the Utah Health Policy Project
The Utah Public Employees’ Association hosted an open forum regarding Federal Health Care Reform and invited the Utah Health Policy Project (UHPP) to present.
Friday, May 21, 2010
12:00 – 1:00
Presentation by the Utah Health Policy Project
The Utah Public Employees’ Association hosted an open forum regarding Federal Health Care Reform and invited the Utah Health Policy Project (UHPP) to present.
UPEA invited all members to participate in the May 19th meeting at the UPEA headquarters. Members were particularly interested in how the reform would affect public employees and whether or not the reforms would solve ballooning premiums within PEHP.
HSAs Not the Solution
The UHPP Board of Trustees Chair, and former PEHP Executive Director, Linn Baker, opened his presentation with a discussion about Health Savings Accounts (HSA). He said that state legislators are endorsing the public employee HSA, which is tied to a High Deductible Health Plan, as a primary benefit for state employees.
HSAs Not the Solution
The UHPP Board of Trustees Chair, and former PEHP Executive Director, Linn Baker, opened his presentation with a discussion about Health Savings Accounts (HSA). He said that state legislators are endorsing the public employee HSA, which is tied to a High Deductible Health Plan, as a primary benefit for state employees.
Baker predicts that healthy people would opt for the HSA over the traditional PEHP plans because healthy people wouldn’t anticipate ever getting sick. However, a mass migration of healthy members to HSAs would leave high risk individuals in traditional plans. The premiums and deductibles for HSAs and traditional plans are both tied to utilization. Therefore, people in the High Deductible Health Plans would be subject to the same increases in medical costs as people in the traditional plans. Overall, HSAs would not solve the problem of rising medical costs.
Reform Should Give Insured Peace of Mind
Federal reform attempts to solve the problem of rising medical costs by placing restrictions on insurance companies, by requiring everyone to be insured, and by providing incentives to businesses that carry insurance for employees. Jessica Kendrick, UHPP Community Engagement Director, introduced attendees to two families that exemplify problems within the current health insurance system. Her examples addressed issues of pre-existing conditions, gaps in coverage and families who are priced out of the health insurance market. Baker linked these problems to the health insurance industry and brokers who serve as go-betweens.
While private plans are paying go-betweens and lobbyists huge sums, the Public Employee Health Plan costs are driven by the larger market—not profits. Public employees should have an interest in the health care reform because current policy decisions will influence future health care costs to public employees.
Also, Baker said the reform should give some peace of mind because insurance companies can no longer set limits on coverage and requires those companies to cover individuals faced with job loss. Lastly, the legislation should result in more transparency for consumers.
Controversial Mandate
Public employees will probably feel the after affects of health reform as a response to changes in the private sector. Baker said that expanding health insurance coverage may cause premiums to increase, but the federal reform addresses this through the controversial mandate that requires everyone to participate in a health insurance plan.
Controversial Mandate
Public employees will probably feel the after affects of health reform as a response to changes in the private sector. Baker said that expanding health insurance coverage may cause premiums to increase, but the federal reform addresses this through the controversial mandate that requires everyone to participate in a health insurance plan.
Theoretically, rising premiums would be mitigated by a healthier risk pool that will result from universal coverage. Currently, some people who can afford to insure themselves choose not to pay premiums—and then use emergency care services to the detriment of those who pay premiums.
Those individuals who choose not to insure themselves would be penalized through the tax code.
Utah is one of 18 states prepared to sue the federal government for requiring all individuals to carry health insurance. Baker suggested that the state could use its resources to apply for federal grants that would lower premiums by addressing malpractice claims and fraud.
Cost Critics
Vocal opponents to the federal reform cite costs as an overall point of opposition. Baker suggested that health care costs have increased more than 10% per year with no ceiling. He said the reform’s initial costs fall well below the cost of doing nothing. The Utah Health Policy Projects gives an unequivocal answer to reform critics:
“The economy remains fragile, and getting health care to millions will have a price tag. But we pay a price for doing nothing as well. The question is: which price is higher? We currently spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make a short-term investment of roughly $100 billion a year to lower costs and provide coverage to almost all the uninsured. This is absolutely necessary in order to get control of the real cost drivers like "fee for service" payment systems that encourage more "treatments" but discourage prevention. Only with reform will small businesses and families begin to see stability in their premium costs. The new legislation will create true competition to get better prices out of insurance companies. It will provide safer care so we don't spend billions extra to treat preventable mistakes like hospital acquired infections.”
The Utah Health Policy Project has resources to help users understand the reform. Baker also recommended the Reform Implementation Station to understand specific scenarios:
http://www.healthpolicyproject.org/NationalReform.html
http://www.healthpolicyproject.org/
The Utah Public Employees’ Association is tracking the issue very closely and will be directly involved with any decisions that affect public employees. We will update members periodically on issues regarding health care.
Utah is one of 18 states prepared to sue the federal government for requiring all individuals to carry health insurance. Baker suggested that the state could use its resources to apply for federal grants that would lower premiums by addressing malpractice claims and fraud.
Cost Critics
Vocal opponents to the federal reform cite costs as an overall point of opposition. Baker suggested that health care costs have increased more than 10% per year with no ceiling. He said the reform’s initial costs fall well below the cost of doing nothing. The Utah Health Policy Projects gives an unequivocal answer to reform critics:
“The economy remains fragile, and getting health care to millions will have a price tag. But we pay a price for doing nothing as well. The question is: which price is higher? We currently spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make a short-term investment of roughly $100 billion a year to lower costs and provide coverage to almost all the uninsured. This is absolutely necessary in order to get control of the real cost drivers like "fee for service" payment systems that encourage more "treatments" but discourage prevention. Only with reform will small businesses and families begin to see stability in their premium costs. The new legislation will create true competition to get better prices out of insurance companies. It will provide safer care so we don't spend billions extra to treat preventable mistakes like hospital acquired infections.”
The Utah Health Policy Project has resources to help users understand the reform. Baker also recommended the Reform Implementation Station to understand specific scenarios:
http://www.healthpolicyproject.org/NationalReform.html
http://www.healthpolicyproject.org/
The Utah Public Employees’ Association is tracking the issue very closely and will be directly involved with any decisions that affect public employees. We will update members periodically on issues regarding health care.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
HB 140 Goes for Guv's Signature
HB 140, Human Resource Management Amendments (Rep. Brad Dee), passed the House for the final vote on Wednesday morning (3/10), was signed by the Senate President and House Speaker Wednesday afternoon, and will be enrolled for the Governor’s signature.
UPEA is appreciative for Rep. Brad Dee’s willingness to work with us in ensuring merit principles were kept intact within the State Personnel Management Act.
UPEA is appreciative for Rep. Brad Dee’s willingness to work with us in ensuring merit principles were kept intact within the State Personnel Management Act.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
HB 140 Substituted in Senate - Sent Back to House
The bill passed both the Senate 2nd and 3rd reading calendars with a 20-5 vote. Because the bill was amended, it was sent back to the House for a final vote. It was placed on the House concurrence calendar, and should pass prior to the end of the legislative session.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Budget: Retirement and Health Insurance Update
Last night, Executive Appropriations met and recommended covering the entire 2.1% retirement contribution rate increase.
In addition they recommended covering half of the 12% or $23 million health insurance increase. UPEA is currently meeting with PEHP, the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and DHRM to work out the final details for the remaining health insurance increase.
In addition they recommended covering half of the 12% or $23 million health insurance increase. UPEA is currently meeting with PEHP, the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget and DHRM to work out the final details for the remaining health insurance increase.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
HB 140 Advances to Senate
At approximately 11:30 this morning, HB 140 was uncircled, substituted, and amended. The sponsor, Representative Brad Dee pointed out that the substitute “included language that UPEA had requested.” Rep. Dee highlighted several of the things that the bill would do, including UPEA’s own draft legislation that streamlines the grievance process making it less costly and less time consuming for the employees and the state.
UPEA acknowledges there are issues with the current pay plan, as no step increases have been given since 2001. As a result, UPEA fought hard to deal with the compression issue and has long advocated a fair and equitable system which rewards all employees though performance increases. This bill will allow the legislature to provide merit increases in any incremental amount, and not limiting it to the current 2.75%. UPEA also added language to the bill that ensures employees are treated fairly, uniformly, and consistently.
UPEA has been carefully studying this bill to continually watch for any inclination to remove pieces from the merit system. The majority of our concerns were heard and acknowledged through this bill.
Rep. Dee mentioned that this bill is employee friendly. Through working with Rep. Dee, UPEA has been able to negotiate several items to improve this bill, enhancing its friendliness to employees. UPEA is very appreciative to Rep. Dee for working closely with us in resolving our concerns.
1st Substitute HB 140 passed the House 56 – 14, and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration.
UPEA acknowledges there are issues with the current pay plan, as no step increases have been given since 2001. As a result, UPEA fought hard to deal with the compression issue and has long advocated a fair and equitable system which rewards all employees though performance increases. This bill will allow the legislature to provide merit increases in any incremental amount, and not limiting it to the current 2.75%. UPEA also added language to the bill that ensures employees are treated fairly, uniformly, and consistently.
UPEA has been carefully studying this bill to continually watch for any inclination to remove pieces from the merit system. The majority of our concerns were heard and acknowledged through this bill.
Rep. Dee mentioned that this bill is employee friendly. Through working with Rep. Dee, UPEA has been able to negotiate several items to improve this bill, enhancing its friendliness to employees. UPEA is very appreciative to Rep. Dee for working closely with us in resolving our concerns.
1st Substitute HB 140 passed the House 56 – 14, and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration.
SB 94 - Dead in Rules
Yesterday Sen. Liljenquist asked for SB 94 - Supplemental Benefit Amendments for Noncontributory Public Employees - to be removed from the Senate 3rd Reading Calendar and sent to the Senate Rules Committee for defeated bills.
This bill would have suspended the 1.5%, the state contributes in employees' 401k. Now the bill is dead.
This bill would have suspended the 1.5%, the state contributes in employees' 401k. Now the bill is dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)