LouisianaVoice has not posted a story on last Thursday’s House Appropriations Committee hearings on the Office of Group Benefits because we did not want to do what the mainstream media under the pressure of a deadline must necessarily do: get the story out quickly and without going into a lot of detail—in short, an overview.
This is not a criticism but simply an observation of the nature of the job. Reporters must report the highlights of such lengthy hearings without going into too much detail. Both time and newspaper space (air time for TV news) dictate this.
We are not bound by such constrictions. Nor are we always tied down to deadlines. While the story is important, we would rather review the entire seven hours of testimony and give you the mood of the hearings, both the adversarial sparks and the heart-wrenching emotion of some of those who gave their testimony.
Accordingly, we will offer two installments on the hearing. The first will concentrate on the testimony of state employees and retirees who will be adversely affected if the proposed plans are implemented, with retirees taking the hardest hits. The second installment will relate the exchanges between the administration representatives and members of the legislature, most of whom ignored the warnings of three years ago when the administration first proposed firing about 150 OGB employees and hiring a third party administrator (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana) and now must deal with the consequences of an angry constituency.
The hearing was one of repeated confrontation between legislators and the administration, and while both sides attempted to adhere to legislative protocol and professionalism, there were times when each side’s contempt for the other surfaced, albeit briefly. But it was sufficient for observers to see that members of the legislature, after six and one-half long years, have finally reached a point that they no longer trusts or have any real patience with the administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-Iowa, R-New Hampshire, R-Anywhere but Louisiana).
In 2011 then-Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater said the state did not need to be in the insurance business but now, a short three years later, the administration has embedded itself in the day to day operations of the Office of Group Benefits, even to the point of bringing in two former BCBS executives to assist CEO Susan West in finding her bearings.
The following year, in 2012, Jindal attempted to “reform” state employee pensions. Our best example of what those reforms would have done, a story we’ve told several times now, is the one of the state employee who planned to retire after 30 years. If she never received another raise before her retirement, her pension, under the current retirement plan, would be $39,000 per year. Under Jindal’s plan, her retirement would have been slashed to $6,000 per year—a $33,000 per year hit—with no social security.
The courts ruled his retirement plan unconstitutional, so now he’s coming after health care benefits.
Rainwater’s successor, Kristy Kreme Nichols and West (the third or fourth CEO since the administration fired Tommy Teague—to tell you the truth, we’ve lost track) alternated in dodging questions, fumbling explanations and being generally unsuccessful in providing simple yes or no answers in their sparring with legislators. Division of Administration (DOA) Executive Counsel Liz Murrill, meanwhile, spent much her time sitting behind the witness table texting, seemingly oblivious to heartbreaking testimony of those who are seeing their coverage costs skyrocketing.
She texted, for example, while Janice Font, an art teacher from West Baton Rouge Parish, told the committee that she must take eight medications daily and can barely make the co-payments on her prescription drugs now. “And now you tell me I’ve got to pay double?”
Murrill continued texting as Font said she had to take five months disability “making $200 a month less than my house note” and how she “can’t even call the company to fix my air conditioning.”
The texting continued as Font implored legislators to explain to her what she had done to deserve such treatment. “I am a good teacher. I do a good job. And I’m barely making it. I don’t deserve this. I would like for somebody to come down here and tell me why this is being done to me.”
Henry Reed, a retired State Fire Marshal’s office employee, said he fought FEMA for hurricane recovery money on behalf of the state but has seen little in the way of gratitude on the part of that same state since his retirement. A victim of both epilepsy and narcolepsy, Reed said he has to take one medication that costs $2,000 per one-month supply.
His doctor prescribed two pills per day of that medication. “OGB changed to Medimpact (a San Diego company OGB contracted with in January to pay prescription drug claims) and Medimpact informed me they would pay for only one pill per day. Apparently someone sitting at a desk in California knows more about my condition than my doctor.
“I thought I had a good health plan,” Reed said. “I called OGB and they referred me to Medimpact.”
Roy Clement is retired from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). “I’m being asked to choose between plans that will decrease my benefits while increasing my costs,” he said. “In 2011 Paul Rainwater came before the committee and said OGB funds would not be directed to other programs after privatization. But if you cut premiums, the funds that were not earned (the state’s 75 percent contribution to premiums) go someplace else.
“Tommy Teague was forced out after he had more than $500 million (in the OGB trust fund). Now the fund is going broke.
“Our mandate at DEQ was to help the people of Louisiana,” he said. “Yet we’ve seen an administration plunder every agency for their use.”
Kay Prince, a retired school teacher from Ruston, said she and her husband “chose to work for the state because of good retirement and excellent benefits. Now that we’re older and not in as good health as when we were younger, we need these benefits and we feel we are not being treated as fairly by the state as we treated the state by giving of ourselves everything we had. This is not a good situation. OGB was a wonderful thing and that was what largely influenced us in our decision to remain in Louisiana.”
Vicky Picou said simply, “If you need one of these (proposed) plans, you can’t afford it. Most increases are loaded heavily on those least able to pay.
“It’s not open access if the costs are more than your monthly income. This administration has found deep pockets to subsidize corporations (but) has found nothing but contempt for OGB members who are ill. Under this administration, OGB has seen its CEOs come and go, its workers get terminated and now this administration wants to see its ill and elderly shoved off the OGB plans.”
Neil Carpenter said OGB is not living up to its own philosophy and goals. “Never in my career have I seen half a billion dollars played with so capriciously and arbitrarily,” he said. “I would at least think you would have an actuarial report whereby you could set premiums. From what I’ve seen, they’re based on nothing. There’s no methodology to the madness.” (We will have much more on this in tomorrow’s story.)
“I know the money was not transferred from the reserve fund to the general fund,” he said. “I know that. But if you reduce the amount coming out of the general fund by underfunding premiums that are supposed to be going to the insurance program, you have effectively done the same thing.
“Somehow, we were paying too little to fund the plans and our reserve fund got too big and now we’re broke because we had too much money.”
Ann Curry, a retiree from the Office of Juvenile Justice pointed out that because members from East and West Feliciana parishes are on the Vantage Health plan, they have been going to doctors in Baton Rouge but because of the structure of the new proposals, those members will not be eligible for the less expensive plan because the Baton Rouge doctors will not be in that network. Consequently, they would have to opt for the more expensive plan.
Mary-Patricia Wray, legislative director for the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, said the administration’s idea of “right-sizing” the OGB plan really meant right-sizing for the administration. “The right-sizing, according to this plan, means it will be suffered by state workers and teachers only. The costs to the state stay the same. Deductibles, co-pays, out-of-network costs will be going up—way, way up. Whenever the state’s position in right-sized, it comes out on top. The last time it right-sized, it saved $95 million by decreasing premiums. That decision led to financial problems and now the state is being ‘same-sized,’ not right-sized. Members of OGB will bear the burden of that poor decision.”
Frank Jobert, executive director of the Louisiana Retired Employees Association said the administration created the crisis. “This entire conversation today would not be necessary had we not reduced premiums and created the problem that exists today that you’re trying to solve on the backs of employees and retirees.”
Jobert said he had been told some legislators do not want to get involved in the OGB discussion “because they’ll be blamed. But if you don’t get involved, you’re going to share the blame. You’re going to leave some people out in the cold.
“This program was fine,” he said. “It was functioning; we were happy with the premiums and nobody was complaining. Now we’re doing everything in a completely different manner, adding confusion, giving programs new names and no one is happy. We need your help,” he told the legislators. “It’s your job. We elected you to do this for us.”
Tommy Teague, who was fired as executive director of OGB on April 15, 2011, when he failed to embrace Jindal’s privatization plan, was one of the last non-legislator to testify. His firing followed that of his wife Melody six months earlier for testifying before Jindal’s streamlining committee. And though she appealed and got her job back, the firing of the two gave birth to the often used term “teagued” as synonymous with being fired or demoted by Jindal.
Teague now serves as general counsel and Vice President of Provider Relations for the newly formed Louisiana Health Cooperative.
“There was never a rule change undertaken at OGB without going through the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),” he said. “We followed the APA every time there was a change in a benefit plan. We allowed for complete oversight of all changes as the APA called for.”
Legislators, as we will see in tomorrow’s installment, were highly critical of the administration’s reluctance to comply with the APA.
“I do have a business motive for being here,” Teague admitted. “Louisiana Health Cooperative is a new start-up health maintenance organization (HMO).
“OGB is required to seek out any Louisiana HMOs that would like to participate in the state employee health coverage during open enrollment. We asked OGB for an opportunity and they refused to let us participate even though we believe the law requires the solicitation process to include us. We offer a plan very similar to the current HMO plan and could save the state millions of dollars.
“We would encourage the oversight process and that you push back the open enrollment (now scheduled for Oct. 1—Oct. 31) and that we be allowed to participate and offer our plan through the open enrollment process.”
Then, deliberately and emphatically, Teague said, “When I was fired (from OGB) in 2011, the fund balance was $506 million and the Office of Group Benefits was running like a top.”
And Liz Murrill texted.



Good work, Tom.
Amen!!
Not having been able to attend or watch the proceedings, this is the first I am hearing of Frank Jobert’s and Tommy Teague’s testimony. Both would seem to have been significant enough for the MSM to single out, but I guess it was easier to fill out most of the reports by repeating the administration’s position for the severalth time. (I know “severalth is not a word, btw). Again, thanks for the report, Tom, and we look forward to tomorrow’s.
Oh, my gosh, I was unable to stay for the entire hearing, but I had no idea that Mr. Teague testified or that he advised that he represents a new HMO which requested an opportunity to participate and OGB refused despite the law apparently requiring the solicitation process to include them. HOW CAN THIS CONTINUE TO GO ON??? WHY ISN’T THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR WHOEVER IN THE HE** HAS THE ABILITY TO STOP THIS DOING SOMETHING???) I have one other thing to add. Ms. Murrill (or whatever her name is) wasn’t the only one texting during heartwrenching testimony. Ms. Nichols was also doing it, and I thought to myself at the time “These highly paid, heartless Jindalites could care LESS about anybody or anything but their big wages and aren’t even really listening.” The health and lives of human beings are on the line here and all they could do was text when they weren’t testifying. That’s why I left the meeting so downhearted.
Kennedy says the state took the money. OGB (https://www.groupbenefits.org/portal/pls/portal30/ogbweb.get_latest_news_file?p_doc_name=4D7A49354F4445794D793551524559334D7A6B31) says the money went to fund OGB claims. Can anyone explain to me this discrepancy?
I’m sure somebody can give you a more precise answer to your question, but doubt they will.
As I said on an earlier thread here, it is legitimate for the administration to state that no money was spent from the OGB reserves for anything but OGB expenses. However, if you reduce the inflow to the fund by reducing premiums (and keep in mind premiums are not just paid from the general fund but from all means of financing. Therefore, a 9% reduction is a substantial amount of money), even if the outflow remained the same (which it clearly did not because expenses for group benefits rose after privatization) logic would dictate the reserves would go down.
I was across the aisle from those folks and several were on their phones the entire time, not appearing to be paying one bit of attention to testimony. I even thought I saw blue borders (i.e., Facebook app) a few times. Glad you pointed this out.
Has anyone heard anything on the filing of a lawsuit to stop the OGB plan changes? I would be willing to contribute.
Mark, I am on a very limited income and I have a lot of health issues, but I, too, would be willing to contribute to the cost of a lawsuit because in the long run, hopefully, it would save our health care. But I’m not in a position to spearhead such a movement, and apparently, those who might be, aren’t willing. I just don’t know what else to do. I’ve written the entire Legislature a couple of times, the Governor’s office a couple of times, I’ve tried to get a letter published in the Advocate which they haven’t printed as yet and it doesn’t say much since I’m limited to something like 450 words which isn’t even enough to get started. I even wrote the IG & AG’s offices asking for help earlier today, but so far, I’ve heard nothing from them. Not that I expect they are going to help since they’ve let so much chicanery go on. I know others who have done just as much as I have, but we’re still at square one, which is devastating for us, so we’re all feeling hopeless at this point.
People are working on filing a class action lawsuit. It’s hard to be patient but the groundwork is being laid. Stay tuned to this medium, y’all. ,
Thanks very much, earthmother. Will definitely stay tuned.
Thank you very much for this information, earthmother! Please keep us posted. I would be more than happy to help in any way that I can.
Count me in, too!
Perhaps the best thing would be for everyone to pressure the Attorney General’s office to go to court in efforts to put the OGB Changes on hold.
Keep in mind if nothing is done and the reserve fund goes to zero as predicted by Ms. Nichols, the program could theoretically be shut down completely for lack of funding. Insurance Commissioner Donelon is on record [during his last guest spot on the Jim Engster Show] stating the state group [health] benefits program is not insurance and, therefore, escapes his department’s regulation. So, what is it and who does regulate it? If it is a benefit for which no long-term contractual agreement is explicit, or even implicit, what is our guarantee it can’t be taken away entirely at the end of a plan year? We are in a real mess here. Any judicial action putting the issue on hold would have to somehow also require the benefits be provided at least until the matter is resolved and that would clearly require funding once the reserves are gone. Since the state is broke, where would the funding come from? Again, this is a true mess.
Stephen, You hit the most important point in all of this. The cost of privatization will be higher than the state run program. We predicted all of this during the transition but the administration had already promised the book of business. Those promised profits to the private sector superseded the needs of the people he was supposed to serve. What a worm this boy wonder turned out to be.
Best coverage out there, Tom!
I have not been able to locate the promulgation of the Emergency Rule that the Administration said was to be effective 10/1/14. What I know of APA is that the Emergency Rule must be published on the Louisiana Register website at least one day prior to the effective date. It is not there; http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/osr/emr/emr.htm
I was at the meeting, and I would like to clarify the comments made by Amy Curry. She compared the benefits of the Magnolia Local plan to the Magnolia Local Plus plan. The Magnolia Local plan for the “Baton Rouge Area” has lower premiums but is limited to residents of EBR, WBR and Ascension parishes only. She questioned why E/W Feliciana and Livingston Parishes could not also utilize that program as they also neighbor EBR parish. Residents of those parishes are basically utilizing the same medical resources as residents of EBR, WBR and Ascension parishes due to lack of medical resources in their areas, but they will be forced to select programs with higher premiums.
She also stated that she had received incorrect information from Ansaphone regarding her medical condition.
Somehow, I have visions of a LOT of problems in the future if people are selecting their policies based on mis-information by Ansaphone staff, then are told they cannot change their minds. 😉
Interesting that there is a better plan where the administration rests their collective heads.
________________________________
Butch Gautreaux – Yes, it is VERY interesting. These plans are offered in Baton Rouge (limited to residents of EBR, WBR and Ascension Parishes), New Orleans (limited to Orleans parish residents), and Shreveport (limited to residents of Caddo/Bossier parishes). It would almost (but not quite) be logical if the Baton Rouge plan was limited to EBR residents only, but I can’t quite figure out the logic/methodology of including WBR and Ascension parishes. Of course, no explanation was forthcoming at the meeting.
The screams should be resounding once all of the State employees in all of the institutions in E/W Feliciana thoroughly read and digest that little tidbit of information. The difference in premium is only a little over $20/month, but when you are a prison guard or mental hospital CNA making next to nothing, every little bit counts.
Don’t know what happened, but earlier I had gotten e-mails from a couple of legislators that Open Enrollment for OGB would be extended through the end of November and that any changes implemented would not take effect until March 1, 2015. I immediately went to OGB’s website, and surely enough, they had posted that very information. I don’t know if it’s just me or my computer, but when I went to the website a few moments ago, all of the info. they had posted earlier is NOW GONE?? So confused!
There is word going around my office that they used that money to fund the 40% pay increase all state troopers are getting that passed through legislation. That’s a pretty big pay increase for them. I’m not sure how true it is, but i also don’t know how to research it.
Not true. The raises are to be paid through increased fines for drivers ticketed with no liability insurance—or in gambling terms, betting on the come.
Aside from all of this, which is by no means to diminish anyone’s situation because going forward this disaster will be getting worse for everyone, but why is it that none of this gets into the press in those areas where B. Jindal has been “campaigning”?
I’ve wondered that very same thing, Bill.
Why can’t just the LOCAL mainstream press cover the story for more than 8 seconds? Sometimes, I think Jindal sends the headlines & text directly to the Advocate, TP, nola & local news stations. They seem to be in his back pocket.
Texting at that meeting only further demonstrates Murrill and Nichols’ arrogance and contempt for state employees/retirees – “the let them eat cake” attitude that seems to be the hallmark of Jindal’s administration. I’m sure they could give their full attention to someone who smelled more like dollar bills.
That was my exact thought when I watched them doing it, SRIRACHA.
I am just horrified by the incompetence and Corruption going on in Baton Rouge. I want to thank you Louisiana Voice for doing an excellent job of reporting.
I attended the entire meeting and heard the testimony as reported here. The printed word cannot convey the arrogance heard in the voices of Kristy Nichols and her OGB comrades as they attempted to dodge the questions from the legislators. What also gave me pause were the ages of the OGB members administering our health benefits. These younger people cannot relate or sympathize with older retirees who are now in need of their health care benefits. What they don’t realize is that one day they will be in the same boat. They better hope karma doesn’t come around and bite them in the butt. What goes around, comes around!!