[W]hen the Vermont teachers union proposed a statewide health care benefit earlier this month, they started a pitched battle over turf.
The union wants to scrap the Vermont Education Health Initiative, a health care benefits pool for 42,000 school workers and their families, and replace it with a new commission that would design and administer medical benefits. Under the Vermont NEA proposal, half of the commission would be comprised of union members. The proposal eliminates collective bargaining on health care only.
The proposal was a significant shift from last session, when the union refused to consider moving negotiations from local school districts to the state. A standoff with Gov. Phil Scott ensued, which led to a veto session and ended with a clunky compromise.
The union and lawmakers have criticized Vermont Education Health Initiative for a bumpy rollout of new health care plans in January. A third party administrator hired by local school districts has left a trail of unpaid bills for out of pocket costs. The Vermont NEA has blamed Vermont Education Health Initiative for the problems.
In testimony to lawmakers Wednesday, representatives of the Vermont Education Health Initiative went on a counter attack and defended the organization.
Vermont Education Health Initiative representatives told lawmakers the roll out of health care plans went “smoothly.” The problems with reimbursements for out of pocket costs were the result of local negotiations, according to Laura Soares, president of the initiative.
Soares said the union recommended a vendor, Future Planning, which had difficulty administering the plans and pulled out of contracts with school districts, leaving them in a lurch.
Darren Allen, spokesman for the Vermont-NEA said they are finished with playing the blame game.
Still bruised from losing all but one seat on the board of VEHI, the union wants lawmakers to focus on eliminating the initiative and replacing it with a commission that gives the union more say over the design of health care plans, including cost sharing, out of pocket costs and payment arrangements.
“We need to find a way to give educators an equal seat at the health care table again. That hasn’t been the case since July 2015,” said Allen.
The union’s message is resonating in both the House and the Senate committee rooms. Sen. Philip Baruth, chair of the Senate Education Committee, folded the Vermont NEA’s language into a draft bill and laid it on the table Wednesday for his committee to start considering.
Rep. David Sharpe, D-Bristol, said he is encouraged by the union’s change of heart regarding the statewide health care benefit, and he wishes the Vermont NEA had come forward with a similar proposal last year, which he believes could have averted the Legislature’s stalematte with Scott last year.
“We have an opportunity now to improve health care for school employees. I hope we are able to do that before the end of the session,” Sharpe said. The panel has been taking testimony and plans to put a placeholder in a miscellaneous education bill to keep the issue germaine so that the committee can flesh out an amendment to be offered at a later date.
But on Wednesday, VEHI was angling to stay in the fight with new information confirming that Future Planning, the vendor that left teachers and school districts in a bind, was recommended to school districts by the teachers union.
“It has been reported to us that a vast majority of districts chose the Vermont company Future Planning instead (of Health Equity) primarily at the urging of the local unions at bargaining,” she said.
About 80 percent of school districts contracted with Future Planning, a local company, to administer Health Reimbursement Accounts. These plans cover out-of-pocket costs not offset by insurance the details of which were negotiated between school boards and local unions.
VEHI had recommended Health Equity, a national vendor that often worked with the insurance carrier.
“We have learned that a lot of the challenges with HRAs right now is actually because of the way the HRAs were designed. Parties agreed locally to plan design arrangements that are impossible to administer,” Soares said.
Health Equity made it clear they wouldn’t work on complicated cost sharing agreements, but Future Planning promised they could do it, according to Soares.
In March, Future Planning wrote school districts to say they were pulling out of contracts by the end of May. At that point, the union said nearly 250 teachers had unpaid claims.
In January, to comply with federal law, VEHI switched to four new Blue Cross Blue Shield plans with lower premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs for employees. Over the past year, school boards around the state negotiated contracts to accommodate the changes.
“Our transition to our new health plans went incredibly smoothly everyone had health coverage on January 1, everyone had health care cards and Blue Cross Blue Shield is paying claims in a timely manner,” said Soares said.
VEHI recommended school boards finish collective bargaining in the summer of 2017 because employees would need to set up either a Health Reimbursement Account — by November 15 for a start of the year deadline.
“Unfortunately, not all contracts did that,” Soares said, adding, “that is why people did not have their HRAs set up.”
Sharpe disputed Soares’ account saying the roll out wasn’t smooth and that there is plenty of blame to go around, including with the Legislature. “It disturbs me VEHI is not willing to take responsibility for their role in the problems occuring during the roll out,” he said.
Sharpe also didn’t like VEHI blaming the unions. “And it particularly disturbs me, in light of the glowing report you gave of your own organization, while managing to subtly impune the unions and local bargaining as the reason for the problems,” he continued.
Allen said the union wants to make sure teachers don’t go through this again. “We are looking forward to find a way to prevent this from happening again,” Allen said.
Jeff Fannon, executive director of the Vermont NEA, told the committee his members support moving to a statewide health care benefit and believe strongly that a commission with equal representation between management and employees should determine the path forward.
“Vermont NEA members spoke loudly and clearly: They do now seek a statewide commission and a statewide benefit,” Fannon said. “Our members did not come to this lightly or quickly. We are working to give details and specifications about what we are thinking.”
