Budgets put more money into worker health care

State lawmakers are negotiating how far to go in helping state employees with their health-care costs. It's $27 more a month in state contributions in the Senate plan, and $95 more in a House plan that won approval late Friday night in a budget amendment.

The health contribution is one of several sticking points in budget talks, and lawmakers are facing a deadline of Thursday to finish work and go home at the end of their regular session. The dispute is not small money — $134 million more spending in the House alternative, just under $40 million in the Senate plan, and about half of the funds in either scenario come out of the state’s general fund.

"To us the only thing that makes sense is maintain the House level of funding," said Greg Devereux, executive director for the Washington Federation of State Employees, which represents 40,000 worker.

Devereux said the typical worker saw his share of health costs go up $1,100 this year, and the House plan avoids another $1,100 hit next year. By contrast, Devereux said, the Senate would cause workers' out-of-pocket costs to soar from about $250 per person to $3,000.

In a bid to reconcile the differences, Gov. Chris Gregoire met with House Speaker Frank Chopp late Monday at the speaker's request. Marty Brown, Gregoire's legislative director, said the parties agreed to get more information from the Health Care Authority to learn what the impact is on state worker health premiums, using the Uniform Medical Plan as a guide.

Gregoire all along had offered a middle ground — adding about $62 in her December budget. If the parties agreed to her scenario, it would raise the state contribution to $830 a month per worker, more than the $795 the Senate proposed and less than the $863 per month that Democratic Rep. Mark Ericks proposed in a House budget amendment that passed Friday night.

"I think it's the best proposal we can get," Rep. Sam Hunt, an Olympia Democrat and advocate for state workers, said.

The higher contributions are needed to cover a huge, $220 million shortfall that has developed in the public-employee healthcare program overseen by the Public Employees Benefits Board.

Lawmakers have themselves to blame for some of the shortfall, according to the union, the Governor’s Office and Republican Rep. Gary Alexander of Thurston County. That is because last year's budget only put in enough money to cover medical inflation at a 3 percent rate, but inflation was several times higher than that.

But public employees fearful of losing their jobs also utilized their care at a much higher rate than predicted, and this also added costs.

More than 300,000 public employees, retirees and dependents are affected.

Under all of the proposals, the state would continue to pay 88 percent of the cost of health insurance premiums, leaving 12 percent for workers.

Some critics like Republican Sen. Joe Zarelli of Ridgefield say that is too high, compared to the private sector.

In a second area important to workers, the House rejected the Senate's 11-day furlough plan that was designed to save $48 million in state funds and another $52 million in other funds. Instead, the House is asking state agencies and institutions of higher education to look for ways to reduce worker compensation by that $100 million amount.

"I don't know where they get the other costs," Hunt said. He said it is still possible furloughs will be required in some way.

I hope to learn more about this tomorrow.