BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






          SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT     BILL NO: SB 628
          Lou Correa, Chair          Hearing date: January 11, 2010
          SB 628 (Ashburn)    as amended  1/07/10     FISCAL:   YES

           PEMHCA:  PROPOSED LOWER TIER OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR  
          EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2010
           

           HISTORY  :            

              Sponsor:  Placer County Board of Supervisors
                       Shasta County Board of Supervisors

              Prior legislation:  none

           
          SUMMARY  : 

          Would allow governmental agencies that participate in the  
          Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) to  
          negotiate a lower tier of employer health care contributions  
          for employees hired after January 1, 2010, if agreed to in a  
          Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with exclusive employee  
          representatives, provided that the relevant PEMHCA  
          contracting agencies are also instrumentalities of either the  
          County of Placer or the County of Shasta.


           BACKGROUND ANALYSIS  : 
          
          1)   What is PEMHCA who is covered by the plan, how is PEMHCA  
          coverage achieved and how is it terminated  ?

          The committee is advised that the Public Employees Medical  
          and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) is a health plan administered  
          by the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)  
          that provides health benefits for all active and retired  
          state employees.

          Local governmental entities such as cities, counties, school  
          districts and special districts can also opt to participate  
          in PEMHCA.  Upon choosing to provide health benefits under  
          PEMHCA for their employees and retirees, participating local  
          Dan Rounds
          Date: 1/07/10                                          Page 1  










          governmental entities enter into a contract with the PERS  
          Board of Administration.  These "contracting agencies" then  
          pay the health benefit premiums to PERS in the manner  
          specified in  existing PEMHCA law  .

          Contracting agencies can terminate their PEMHCA contract with  
          PERS in the time and manner prescribed in  existing PEMHCA  
          law  , should they choose to do so.

          2)   Are PEMHCA coverage and monthly health benefit premiums  
          different for active and retired employees  ?

          A basic feature of PEMHCA is that all participating members,  
          active and retired employees of state or contracting  
          agencies, are covered by the  same benefit structure  and have  
          the  same monthly premiums  .

          3)   What type of health plans are offered under PEMHCA  ?

          Participants are permitted to choose an HMO, PPO or  
          fee-for-service health plan offered under PEMHCA.  All of the  
          PEMHCA-offered health plans provide the same basic coverage  
          with some variation between plans, but often significantly  
          different monthly cost.  Any monthly cost  that exceeds the  
          employer contribution is paid for by the participant  .

          4)   Can PEMHCA participants switch health plans  ?

          There is an annual "open enrollment" period in the fall  
          during which PEMHCA participants can change their health plan  
          from one offered plan to another.

          5)   How is the employer contribution towards monthly PEMHCA  
          health benefit premiums determined under existing law  ?

                a)   The employer PEMHCA contribution for represented  
            and non-represented active local               agency  
            employees  .

              The employer PEMHCA contribution for  represented  active  
              local employees is determined in collective bargaining.   
               All represented employees in a local agency within the  
              same bargaining unit must receive the same employer  
          Dan Rounds
          Date: 1/07/10                                          Page 2  










              PEMHCA contribution under existing law  .

              The employer PEMHCA contribution for  non-represented   
              active local employees (managers and supervisors) is  
              determined by the employer.   All non-represented  
              employees in a local agency must receive the same  
              employer PEMHCA contribution under existing law  .

            b)    The employer PEMHCA contribution for retirees of local  
              contracting agencies  .

              There are two irrevocable contract options that the local  
              contracting agencies can utilize at the time they first  
              enter into a contractual relationship with the PERS Board  
              to provide PEMHCA benefits to their employees and  
              retirees, as follows:

                       1)  the employer can choose to provide equal  
              employer PEMHCA contributions 
                        for active and retired employees, or

                2)        the employer can choose to provide a minimum  
                  employer PEMHCA    contribution of $1 per month per  
                  retiree, but existing law then requires that the  
                  employer PEMHCA contribution increase by 5% each year  
                  until, in the 20th year of retirement, the employer  
                  PEMHCA contribution for the retired employees is  
                  equal to that made for active employees.

           
          ANALYSIS  :
          
          1)  This bill  would, for relevant PEMHCA contracting agencies  
          that are also instrumentalities of either the County of  
          Placer or the County of Shasta:  
           
                a) allow PEMHCA local agencies to negotiate a lower  
            tier of employer health care      contributions for  
            employees hired after January 1, 2010, if agreed to in an  
            MOU with exclusive employee representatives,

                b) provide that the employer cannot take the issue of  
            employer PEMHCA contributions to  impasse in labor  
          Dan Rounds
          Date: 1/07/10                                          Page 3  










            negotiations, and

                c) provide that employees hired before the effective  
            date of an MOU that provides a new, lower tier of employer  
            PEHMCA contributions for new hires shall retain that status  
            after they retire and not be eligible for inclusion in a  
            lower tier of employer contributions.


           COMMENTS  :

          1)   Arguments in support  

          In their letter of support, the sponsor states:

                "Current law limits public agencies that contract with  
            CalPERS for health insurance      under the Public  
            Employees Medical Care and Hospital Act (PEMCHA), to a  
            limited number of options to pay for employee and retiree  
            health insurance premium contribution.  This means that  
            contracting agencies such as Placer and Shasta counties  
            have very little flexibility to set benefits for county  
            employees.

                SB 628 will enhance contracting agencies' ability to  
            provide two-tiered benefits systems through CalPERS.  The  
            costs associated with CalPERS establishing two-tiered  
            systems for contracting agencies would be born by those  
            contracting agencies.

                This measure is an appropriate and needed authority for  
            CalPERS contracting agencies to address their ongoing  
            benefit needs."

           1)Arguments in opposition

           In their letter of opposition, the California Association of  
          Professional Scientists (CAPS) states:

                "As we understand it, the sponsors of the bill would  
            like to change existing law to allow for counties to be  
            able to provide a two-tiered health benefits system for  
            county annuitants which they are currently prohibited from  
          Dan Rounds
          Date: 1/07/10                                          Page 4  










            doing.  If a county wants to proceed in this manner, they  
            should sit own and negotiate it with the affected labor  
            group in the county and then proceed with the legislation  
            for that particular county, if needed."

            Opponents also note that a two-tiered health system creates  
            an unfair work environment by providing disparate  
            compensation for employees who do the same work.  In  
            addition, since new employees generally start at the lower  
            end of the pay scale, they are least likely to afford the  
            full cost of health care benefits.

          3)   OPPOSITION  :

               California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS)
               California Professional Firefighters (CPF)
               California Labor Federation (CLF)
               California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
               Orange County Employees' Association (OCEA)
               Peace Officers Research Association of California  
          (PORAC)
               Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG)
               Retired Public Employees' Association (RPEA)




                                      #####













          Dan Rounds
          Date: 1/07/10                                          Page 5