Last Tuesday, as testimony wound down before the Senate Retirement Committee over the proposed sale of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits, committee Chairman A.D. “Butch” Gautreaux (D-Morgan City) commented that perhaps the Jindal administration should consider selling the State Capitol because “it would make a great waterslide.”
Besides Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater’s describing published accounts about the administration’s shenanigans as reading “like a John Grisham novel” and Rep. Rogers Pope, reacting to Rainwater’s annoying habit of consistently giving evasive answers to his questions, saying that Rainwater “should be on Dancing With the Stars,” the committee hearing produced precious little levity.
But some comparisons of what was said earlier and what was said later might shed some light on the inconsistencies of statements by Gov. Bobby Jindal and Rainwater. Comparisons between Louisiana’s Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and that of the state of Utah also are somewhat revealing. The state’s PPO plan is that part of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) that contracts with doctors and hospitals for services to members and which Jindal is so desperate to privatize over the objections of plan members and legislators.
Jindal at first was pragmatic about his proposed auction of OGB, saying that it just made good financial sense for the state to rid itself of the burden of serving as a health insurance agency. Besides giving him a couple of hundred million dollars to plow into the $1.6 billion budget abyss, it would eliminate 149 state jobs, something he seems determined to do.
But in Friday’s Baton Rouge Business Report, Jindal shifted gears oh so subtly when he said his reasons for wanting to divest the state of OGB was rooted as much in his philosophical opposition to government-run health care–he equated it to his opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care plan–as any other reason.
As Archie Bunker might have said, he switched from pragmatic to philosophical in the blink of a hat.
Likewise, consider the words of Rainwater. A week ago, he said the reason OGB would be attractive to buyers in the private sector was because the $500 million existing surplus would allow a new owner to pay claims out of that reserve without the buyer having to dip into its own reserves initially.
But on Friday, Rainwater sent out a two-page letter to OGB members in which he emphatically claimed that was not the case at all. These are his words, lifted directly from that letter:
“Strong restrictions remain in place governing the OGB surplus, and it will continue to be utilized just as it is now – solely for the purpose of providing health coverage for plan members.”
So, with Rainwater making such a strong promise (in boldface type, no less), why was it necessary to inject those four notorious lines into HB-32 which would have the effect of directing the state treasurer to divert any surplus funds from OGB to the state’s General Fund when current law strictly prohibits just such action by the administration?
That’s a question that only Jindal or Rainwater can answer but so far they have not addressed that provision of the bill.
Finally, there’s the comparison between Louisiana and Utah.
Why? Because no less than half-a-dozen times during last Tuesday’s Retirement Committee hearing Rainwater alluded to the fact that Louisiana is one of only two states in the U.S.—Utah being the other—that has a completely self-administered system. Put another way, the two states are the only ones that pay PPO claims exclusively in-house.
Each time Rainwater made the statement that Louisiana was one of only two such systems, he said it like it was a bad thing. And he said it so often that Gautreaux, apparently weary of hearing the line repeated as if by rote, finally interrupted Rainwater to say that after hearing it said repeatedly, everyone present was now aware the fact and there was no further need to dwell on that point.
But perhaps the point needs to be scrutinized more closely.
So, with that in mind, CNS contacted Jeff Jensen in Salt Lake City. He is Director of the “other” program in Utah.
Strangely enough, he said when asked the direct question that the Republican administration of that state had introduced HB-404 which seeks to privatize the Utah group benefits program. What a coincidence.
“Our program has worked well for 30 years,” he said in a telephone interview with CNS.
How well? Well, the Louisiana OGB has an administrative cost of roughly 3.5 percent compared to about 4 percent for Utah. Among private insurance companies, administrative costs run, on average, between 10 and 15 percent–some even higher.
“We don’t have quite the surplus, or escrow, that Louisiana does,” Jensen said. “When we accumulate a surplus at a certain level, we refund that to our members by reducing premiums.”
In Louisiana, members are happy with OGB because it averages no more than 48 hours on claims payments. In Utah, Jensen, said, the average is about 14 days, “but improving.”
In Louisiana, privatization of OGB would cut the number of employees in that agency by half, Rainwater has been quoted as saying. Later, the number was given as 149, meaning that the agency now employs about 300 people to service the health insurance needs of approximately 220,000 active members, retirees, and dependents. That’s one OGB representative for every 733 members.
Jindal said that number is far too many and is wasteful.
Utah currently employs 230 people to service the health needs of 140,000 members, or one representative for every 609 employees.
The comparisons, however, end there. Utah’s State Capitol is not conducive to use as a water slide.
Below is the blurb from the Business Report followed by Rainwater’s letter in its entirety:
Jindal says La. shouldn’t run health insurance program
Gov. Bobby Jindal is pitching his bid to privatize a health insurance program for state workers as a fight against government-run health care, equating it to his opposition to President Barack Obama’s health overhaul. Jindal says that he doesn’t think Louisiana should be in the business of running a health insurance program, as he tries to gain support for his plan to hire an outside company to run the program currently run by the Office of Group Benefits. The idea faces significant opposition from some lawmakers and current and retired state employees. Jindal says privatization would cut in half the 300-employee group benefits office workforce and generate $10 million in annual savings for the state, in addition to an up-front, lump-sum payment that could top $150 million. “In a time of serious fiscal challenges, these funds, in future years, could go a long way toward protecting critical taxpayer-supported services that benefit all our citizens,” says Paul Rainwater, commissioner of administration and Jindal’s budget chief. Rainwater made the statement in a letter to Office of Group Benefits plan members. He assured members that potential privatization would not affect service, coverage, benefits or premium rates.
Rainwater’s letter:
April 29, 2011
Dear Plan Member,
I write to you regarding the possible further privatization of the Office of Group Benefits (OGB). In the past few weeks, numerous rumors about this proposal have caused concern, among government employees and retirees alike, over what it might mean for their future health coverage. I certainly sympathize with those concerns, and I would share them too, if the rumors were true – but they are not.
As Commissioner of Administration, with responsibility for overseeing OGB, I believe strongly in the need to provide you with the facts, to separate rumors from reality, and hopefully alleviate any concerns you may have.
As you know, OGB has long used private companies to deliver various health plans, including the most popular plan, the HMO. These plans operate successfully and provide quality service, with administrative oversight by OGB. Only the PPO plan – which provides coverage for 61,469, or 27 percent, out of a total of 225,870 government employees, retirees, and dependents covered through OGB – is self-administered by state government, and it is only this plan, under the proposal, that would change in that regard.
My pledge to all plan members is this:
• You will continue to receive quality service and coverage regardless of the potential further privatization of OGB.
• Premiums rates, likewise, would be unaffected by this transition, and increases, when they occur, will continue to be reflective of medical market rates, as they are now.
• Benefits for all plan members, including retirees, will NOT change. We will continue to provide an HMO, PPO, and other plans with a benefit structure that is the same or better than the health plans OGB now offers.
• Current eligibility rules for coverage will not change for all plan members, active and retired alike.
• And OGB’s administrative oversight will continue, securing the continued success of all the plans.
As for the allegation that OGB’s surplus will somehow be “stolen” and diverted for other budgetary purposes, let me be absolutely clear: This claim is categorically untrue. Strong restrictions remain in place governing the OGB surplus, and it will continue to be utilized just as it is now – solely for the purpose of providing health coverage for plan members.
So why, then, explore such a proposal? Well, the simple fact of the matter is that taxpayers, who pay 75 percent toward plan member premiums and the cost of providing coverage, also have a stake in this discussion. A preliminary estimate suggests that a financial transaction with a commercial health provider involving the HMO and PPO plans could generate for the state at least $150 million. In a time of serious fiscal challenges, these funds, in future years, could go a long way toward protecting critical taxpayer-supported services that benefit all our citizens.
Our research of best practices shows that every other state besides Louisiana that offers a PPO plan does so through private companies, so we know it can be done with positive results. In the coming weeks we will engage an expert financial advisor to assist us in a thorough evaluation of this proposal, and to help us make a careful determination to proceed on a course of action that’s in best interest of both plan members and taxpayers.
This lengthy evaluation will also prepare us to present a detailed presentation of the proposal to you, as well as to the Legislature’s appropriation and finance committees, whose members have jurisdiction over OGB and whose approval would be needed for any contract involved.
In closing, I hope that expressing to you the reality of the situation, which runs so counter to the rumors you have may have heard, has helped to dispel concerns these rumors have caused. As we gather more information, I will see to it that you are given updates as they develop. More importantly, I will make sure that you continue to receive the quality service and coverage from your health plan that you expect and deserve.
Sincerely,
Paul Rainwater
Commissioner of Administration


