Michigan Votes

2007 Senate Bill 418 (Require MESSA to disclose claims history data )

Public Act 106 of 2007

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen on April 19, 2007, to create at least two different state-sponsored catastrophic “stop loss” coverage health insurance plans that public employers could pay to join, including local governments, school districts, community colleges and state universities. These state plans would cover insurance claims of any employee that exceed $50,000. The actual public employer would be responsible for any insurance coverage for claims less than this amount. Public employers would be allowed to create purchasing pools or coalitions to procure employee insurance up to the $50,000 amount, or self-insurance pools to provide that coverage. The bill establishes standards and regulations for the latter.
    • Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on April 19, 2007.
      • Reported in the Senate on May 24, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on June 26, 2007, to separate the question of approving the substitute for this bill from the vote to concur with the other bills that were recommended by the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on June 26, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 26, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that that does not include the state-sponsored "stop loss" policy provisions, but does include the provisions that make it easier for schools and local governments to form insurance purchasing pools. An amendment offered by Senator Kahn and adopted which would effectively eliminate a provision require the Michigan Education Special Services Association, an insurance agency subsidiary of the MEA teachers union that provides health insurance to most school districts, to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases. The substitute failed in the Senate (18 to 19) on June 26, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 4, 2007, that the previous question be ordered on the passage of the bill, the substitute, and the amendments. The motion passed in the Senate (20 to 18) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Ray Basham and Sen. Roger Kahn on September 4, 2007, to remove the provision that would require the MESSA insurance agency (an arm of the MEA teachers union) to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to produce competitive bids on a school district's health insurance purchases. The amendment passed in the Senate (19 to 19) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Substitute offered by Sen. Mark Jansen on September 4, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that includes the provision that would require MESSA to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases. The substitute failed in the Senate by voice vote on September 4, 2007.
    • Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 4, 2007, the vote by which the substitute, as amended, offered by Senator Jansen was not adopted. The motion passed in the Senate (20 to 18) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 4, 2007, the vote by which the amendments offered by Senators Basham and Kahn to the substitute were adopted. The motion passed in the Senate (20 to 18) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Ray Basham and Sen. Roger Kahn on September 4, 2007, to remove the provision that would require the MESSA insurance agency (an arm of the MEA teachers union) to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to produce competitive bids on a school district's health insurance purchases. The amendment failed in the Senate (18 to 20) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Substitute offered by Sen. Mark Jansen on September 4, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not include the state-sponsored "stop loss" policy provisions of the original bill, but does include the provisions that make it easier for schools and local governments to form insurance purchasing pools, and also the provision that would require the Michigan Education Special Services Association (MESSA), an insurance agency subsidiary of the MEA teachers union that provides health insurance to most school districts, to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases. The substitute passed in the Senate (20 to 18) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Failed in the Senate (19 to 19) on September 4, 2007, to allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools, and prescribe standards and regulations for these. The bill would require the MEA teacher union's insurance affiliate MESSA to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 4, 2007, the vote by which the bill was defeated. The motion passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on September 4, 2007, to allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools, and prescribe standards and regulations for these. The bill would require the MESSA insurance subsidiary of the state's largest teachers union (the MEA), to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases. The bill also requires pools to seek competitive bids and to re-bid insurance purchases every three years. Passed in the Senate (20 to 18) on September 4, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on September 5, 2007.
    • Referred to the House Education Committee on September 5, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on September 11, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on September 11, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that removes the Senate-passed provisions requiring MESSA to release individual school district claims history data, and requiring the pools to seek competitive bids. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on September 11, 2007.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Marty Knollenberg on September 11, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that would mirror the Senate-passed version by requiring MESSA to release individual school district claims history data, and requiring the pools to seek competitive bids. The substitute failed in the House by voice vote on September 11, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton on September 11, 2007, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 549, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. SB 549 would require all regular school districts within an Intermediate School District to adopt a common school calendar. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on September 11, 2007.
  • Passed in the House (64 to 42) on September 11, 2007, to allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools, and prescribe standards and regulations for these. The House-passed bill would not require the MESSA insurance subsidiary of the state's largest teachers union (the MEA) to release individual school district claims history data, and would not require the pools to seek competitive bids. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on September 12, 2007.
  • Failed in the Senate (17 to 20) on September 18, 2007, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on September 19, 2007.
  • Passed in the House (56 to 53) on September 30, 2007, to require MESSA, the MEA teacher union's insurance affiliate, to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases, but releasing it is bitterly opposed by MESSA and the MEA. The bill would also allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools, and prescribe standards and regulations for these. Its passage occurred as part of a deal to avoid reducing state spending in the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year by imposing $1.5 billion in tax increases, including an increase in the state income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent (House Bill 5194) and imposing a 6 percent tax on many personal and business services (House Bill 5198). [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on September 20, 2007.
  • Passed in the Senate (22 to 15) on September 30, 2007, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 30, 2007, the vote by which the conference report was adopted. The motion passed in the Senate by voice vote on September 30, 2007.
  • Received in the Senate on September 30, 2007, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Failed in the Senate (19 to 17) on September 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 30, 2007, that rule 3.311 be suspended to permit reconsideration of the vote by which the conference report was not adopted. This was a procedural motion to allow another "try" at passing the bill after it failed to garner sufficient votes in a previous passage attempt. The motion passed in the Senate by voice vote on September 30, 2007.
  • Received in the Senate on September 30, 2007. Failed in the Senate (18 to 17) on September 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 30, 2007, that rule 3.311 be suspended to permit reconsideration of the vote by which the conference report was not adopted. This was a procedural motion to allow another "try" at passing the bill after it failed to garner sufficient votes in a previous passage attempt. The motion passed in the Senate by voice vote on September 30, 2007.
  • Received in the Senate on September 30, 2007, to require MESSA, the MEA teacher union's insurance affiliate, to release individual school district claims history data. This information is said to be necessary to allow other insurance providers to bid on a district's health insurance purchases, but releasing it is bitterly opposed by MESSA and the MEA. The bill would also allow schools and local governments to form health insurance purchasing pools, and prescribe standards and regulations for these. Its passage occurred as part of a deal to avoid reducing state spending in the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year by imposing $1.5 billion in tax increases, including an increase in the state income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.35 percent (House Bill 5194) and imposing a 6 percent tax on many personal and business services (House Bill 5198). Passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on September 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on September 30, 2007, to give the bill immediate effect. Immediate effect was granted in a later "voice vote". The motion failed in the Senate (23 to 15) on September 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 1, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen on April 19, 2007. Failed in the Senate (19 to 19) on September 4, 2007. New Comment

1) The truth of the matter [by Anonymous Citizen on October 4, 2007]
The real issue is one of control. How many employers out there (public or private sector) hand over control of a large budget item such as health insurance? But to a large degree that is what most Michigan schools have done. MESSA's refusal to release claims data and the MEA's tactics at the bargaining table have prevented schools from bidding health insurance, and more importantly from making changes to the funding mechanisms and benefit structures that would help control costs. Nothing against MESSA health insurance, but they should have to compete for the business like anyone else. The employer (in this case the school district) should control the process and be able to shop for the best, most cost-effective means of providing health insurance under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement(s).
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Response to anonymous citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
It appears the anonymous citizen is one of the small percentage of our great teachers in this state that have been brainwashed by the MEA. A teacher's right to have the best of the best insurance policy, come on??? As far as the lower than normal increase in rates this year, that is only the result of MESSA over-chargin for years. They are now using those stockpiles of cash reserves to artificially lower the rates instead of paying the MEA. This is a great law that will help the STUDENTS of Michigan!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Reform? How about pathetic excuse for leadership. [by Anonymous Citizen on September 9, 2007]
Pushing this bill as a "reform" as part of the state budget process, is a sad and frankly pathetic attempt to once again balance the budget on the backs of teacher’s rights.

The bill's supporters have no studies or reliable data to show that this will save any money. In fact, the West Michigan Health Insurance Pool, a pool that SB 418 supporters refer to often as an example, just increased its rates by 21 percent. By comparison, MESSA's statewide average rate increase for the current year was less than 3 percent. If you dont believe me check it out yourself. Its all available on-line.

Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the Senate on September 4, 2007. Passed in the Senate (20 to 18) on September 4, 2007. New Comment

1) STELLAR GOVERNMENT TEACHER [by Anonymous Citizen on November 14, 2007]
A government school teacher in Idaho used school computers to talk about his fantasies of having sex with (and raping) teenagers. Peter Perkins taught social studies at Rogers High School. He was also photographed "twisting the nipples" of bare-chested high school boys in a bathroom. He wrote about his fantasies of raping a student, used district computers to have explicit online chats and download graphic files.
Peter Perkins was removed from the classroom a year ago ... but he is still being paid. Yep. Taxpayers of the Spokane government school district have paid $69,000 in the past year for this creep's salary and benefits ... for doing absolutely nothing ... which, by the way, pretty well describes what many other government school teachers are being paid to do.
Oh and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction has yet to determine whether or not Perkins' teaching certificate should be revoked. Golly, ya think? That's government for you.

Reply New Comment

Line

2) RE: STELLAR GOVERNMENT TEACHER [by Anonymous Citizen on December 25, 2007]
In Reply To: STELLAR GOVERNMENT TEACHER by Anonymous Citizen

Perkins was actually a teacher a teacher at Rogers High School located in Spokane, WA.

I knew Perkins personally as he was my freshman history teacher and the yearbook adviser. I had suspected that he may be gay, but this damning evidence of him being a pedophile have really shocked me. He was friendly, nice, and easy to get along with; definitely one of my favorite teachers, which is why this news has really hit me hard.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) The almighty MEA [by Anonymous Citizen on September 6, 2007]
I see as usual, the MEA has 100% control of the Democrat vote.

How disgusting!
Reply New Comment

Line

4) You obviously want stupid kids [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
Yeah, let's take away the teacher's one truly great benefit. They get paid horribly, are forced to get advanced educations, and get less respect than sanitation workers. They are in charge of your children's education. It only makes sense that all teachers want to do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Heck, why pay them anything at all? They should pay to teach your wonderful children. This makes total sense. If I had kids, I want underpaid, underbenefited individuals to teach them. Because that's what's going to make someone stand up and do a bang up job teaching. I know I would love to take a large pay cut and teach your horrible children. But then again, you seem to want stupid kids, so by all means, vote against any kind of benefits for teachers.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Answers [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
"They get paid horribly,"

50 grand for 9 months work, sounds good to me.

"get less respect than sanitation workers."

Quit with the indoctrination and being a mouthpiece for the leftists and unions and you will EARN some respect.

"forced to get advanced educations"

The majority of "educators" come from the bottom 10% of every college class

"teach your horrible children"

Great attitude for a teacher.

"vote against any kind of benefits for teachers."

The public has been doing this for a few years now.
How about a question or two for you..
Why are you against school choice or vouchers?
Why do you stand behind your union when they protect the worst amongst you?
Why do you vote dem/lib/socialist 90% of the time, Is this because the union hacks tell you to? Don't you have a mind of your own?
If it is so bad then why don't you go out into the real world and give up the public teat? It just might give you a different outlook on what us poor serfs that pay you have to go through every day.


Reply New Comment

Line

6) Re: Answers [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
"50 grand for 9 months work, sounds good to me."

First, teachers work for more than 9 months per year. You haven't factored in the mandatory training over the summer (at our own cost) or the hours put in before and after school hours. However, let's break down this incredible amount that sounds so good to you. I was in my district for 5 years with a master's degree before I made 50 grand, by the way. Let's do the math here. $50, 000 (we won't even address the chunk Uncle Sam will be taking 1st -- we'll assume that number is take home pay) divided by 180 school days (since you claim that's all teachers work)equals roughly 278. Take that number and divide by 7 hours (since you claim those are the only hours teachers work). You get approximately 40. Take that number and divide by 27 which is a good average class size although all the teachers in my district currently have more. You end up with a grand total of about $1.50 per hour per kid. I'll bet you pay your child care worker more than that.

"Quit with the indoctrination and being a mouthpiece for the leftists and unions and you will EARN some respect."

You obviously haven't spent any time in a real classroom if you believe that is what is happening.

"The majority of "educators" come from the bottom 10% of every college class"

Nonsense! In fact, most teachers hold master's degrees or better. You can not be accepted into an advanced degree program without a 3.0 or better. You can not be accepted into an endorsement program without a 3.0 or better. If your grades ever drop below that level, you are tossed out of the program.

" 'teach your horrible children'
Great attitude for a teacher."

The fact is that some children are lovely, well behaved children who follow directions and come to school to learn. These children have parents who instill discipline at home before they ever come to school. Then there are the rest -- ill behaved, disrespectful children who are most definitely not a pleasure to work with. These are the "horrible" ones the previous poster was referring to. I doubt you'd feel any differently dealing with these children on a daily basis.


"Why are you against school choice or vouchers?"

If the schools you think are so much better had to play on the same playing field as the public schools (take all who show up, actually dealing with the academic/behavior problems instead of tossing the kids out, following the same rules, etc) then maybe I would support this.

"Why do you stand behind your union when they protect the worst amongst you?"

Obviously, you haven't been in a teachers' lounge recently to hear the discussions regarding these situations.

"Why do you vote dem/lib/socialist 90% of the time, Is this because the union hacks tell you to? Don't you have a mind of your own?"

The union does not tell anyone how to vote. Teachers run the gamut of all political beliefs from staunch conservatives to flaming liberals, the same as the rest of the population.


"If it is so bad then why don't you go out into the real world and give up the public teat? It just might give you a different outlook on what us poor serfs that pay you have to go through every day."

And perhaps if you actually came into an actual classroom, you might have some idea of what teachers go through all day. Finally, if you think teaching is such a cushy job, get certified and join us.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) 50 grand for 9 months work, sounds good to me." [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2007]
I am a taxpayer in Grand Traverse County. I did some research on our public school district (TCAPS) to see where the money is spent. Getting the information from them was like pulling hens teeth. Anyway, almost 88% of the total budget goes to wages and benefits! That leaves little 'for the children'. I am sick and tired of hearing about the overworked and underpaid teachers. Why don't the 'unhappy' ones quit, and get another job?
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Re: Pay [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2007]
"50 grand for 9 months work, sounds good to me."

Yeah, me too. Too bad that it is not true. I'm getting really tired of people who have no idea what teachers really do making that statement. Teaching is like an iceberg -- much of it is below the surface. Why don't you calculate all the hours teachers put in before and after school, on holidays, and over the summer? Oh, I forgot, then you couldn't criticize and belittle teachers. If you think teaching is so easy and teachers do so little, then give it a try. Until you actually have some knowledge of what teachers actually do, you have no right to criticize.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) re: 50 grand for 9 months [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2007]
I have 3 "teachers" in the family. It isn't quite as hard as you make it out to be. 6 hour days, 3 months off plus winter break, spring break fall break etc. The teachers are mostly made up from the slackers in school. You decide to become a teacher because you don't want to work real hard and like alot of time off. Some do it because they really love kids but for most it is just an easy button.
Show me one teacher that works holidays.
Most of the after schools time is spent planning vacations with other teachers. Be careful you don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Reply New Comment

Line

10) Re: Teachers [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2007]
I work every holiday except Christmas Day. Either I am grading papers, designing lessons, gathering resources or creating and assembling games/activities. I don't know very many teachers who work only a 6 hour day; the teacher in the classroom next to me is usually here until 7 pm. I'm usually here about 2 hours before school starts. No one goes into teaching because it is a cushy job -- or if they do, they don't last long.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) You're Also [by Anonymous Citizen on November 14, 2007]
A Liar.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) you have that backwards. [by Anonymous Citizen on September 6, 2007]
the democrats have 110% control over the mea's vote.


Reply New Comment

Line

13) Sen. Jansen's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on September 5, 2007]
Senator Jansen's statement is as follows:

I want to give a speech that I didn't do during this process because of all the activity on the passage of Senate Bill No.418 and the rest of that package. I believe this is a public employer health benefits package that will save money, protect local decision, maintain quality benefits so that we can recruit good workers into public life, and allow more money to be used on essential public services that will go into the classroom.

This legislation requires public employers to use the marketplace to their advantage through competitive bidding and having access to claims information. This package would require public employers to bid their medical benefits at least every three years, and they will be required to solicit at least four bids, but are still free to choose which bid is right for their employees needs, looking out for their local employees. In order to facilitate accurate bids, public employers will have access to their claims data. The claims data will be given for employers who have 100 or more employees in a medical benefit plan or are pooled with other employers and the combined group that has over 100 employees.

This 100-employee threshold is the insurance industry standard right now. The data would be compiled on a go-forward basis from the effective date of the act. The claims and cost information will be given by provider type, such as radiologist or cardiologist. The data would include administrative costs, dollar amounts for service fees paid like provider access fees or contingency fees, if charged. The information would be HIPAA-compliant to ensure patients' privacy rights and information would be protected. The claims information would only be made available during the bidding process to the employer and the employee representative, as well as any carriers who want to bid for business.

The other main component of this legislation is to allow local units of government of any kind to pool for the purchase of health insurance. The pools would be regulated by OFIS, and the bill contains many safeguards to ensure solvency and stability. The pools must have a minimum of 250 employees in order to be created, and if an employer chooses to join a pool, they must be a member for at least three years. Should an employee leave a pool, they can't rejoin for a minimum of two years. While there are safeguards, we design the safeguards to be very flexible. We believe combining stability and flexibility will allow local units of government to maximize their savings.

Probably the most important effect of this package is that we allow locals to save money and use that money to improve local services, whether that be putting more police on the streets or putting more money in the classroom.

I am very proud to be able to say that I voted for this package today, along with 19 others of my colleagues, and I want to thank them for that.

Reply New Comment

Line

14) Sen. Sanborn's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on September 5, 2007]
Senator Sanborn's statement is as follows:

Mr.Lieutenant Governor, regarding a vote that I just had the opportunity to make, of course, many people are aware I have not previously supported Senate Bill No.418. I was quite puzzled by a guest column that I read in a newspaper, The Detroit News from August 15, a guest column which states, "Let there be no mistake, Governor Jennifer Granholm and her entire administration embrace government reforms and have done so from day one." Further in the story it says, "As presiding officer of the Senate, it concerns me that even as Republican leadership calls for reforms and speaks as if the Governor is standing in opposition to those reforms, they have refused to pass Senate Bill No.418, as well as other reforms. Furthermore, they're opposing the Governor's sensible prison reform resorting to the scare tactics to maintain the status quo."

Mr.Lieutenant Governor, I have respected you as long as I have been here, and I still hold the highest respect for you. However, this editorial and then watching your vote when you had a chance to prove what you wrote in this column, which was written by you, has caused me to rethink my position. People are going to want to know why I switched. I read the guest column from August 15 that you wrote. You had a chance to have those reforms come, therefore, I feel it is necessary for me to change my vote.

Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the House on September 5, 2007. Passed in the House (64 to 42) on September 11, 2007. New Comment

1) Losers in Lansing [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
The teachers need good insurance. Why do people in Lansing get Life time insurance at my expense?

Make them pay for their own?
Reply New Comment

Line

2) "no vote explanation of" [by Admin003 on September 13, 2007]
Rep. Knollenberg, having reserved his right to explain his protest against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 418, 419, 420 and 421, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

The intent of this package of bills was to increase competition and lower healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bills accomplished this goal when they came over from the Senate. However, as amended in Committee today, these bills are gutted.

The question must be asked, why? Why are we destroying legislation designed to save our school districts much needed money? Why are the only two groups opposed to the Senate bill Sponsor's intentions the MEA and MESSA? And why are we pandering to these special interest groups when testimony clearly showed that the Senate passed version of these bills would provide much needed additional options for our struggling rates.

We have an opportunity here today to make some real reform and provide an option to our school districts to save some real money without reducing benefits. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this substitute because of the changes made in Committee today which remove some of the competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. Let's get this right while we have the opportunity. I would respectfully urge a no vote."

Reply New Comment

Line

3) "journal statement of" [by Admin003 on September 13, 2007]
Senator George's statement is as follows:

I rise to comment on House action taken yesterday regarding Senate Bill No.418, which, you will recall, is the public employee health reform measure which we narrowly passed last week and sent to the House. The measure passed the Senate by one vote and I voted for it. I understand that yesterday the House took action, took up the bill, and substitutedit with language that destroys its intent. The House substitute removes the provision which we put in which would require the sharing of claims data. It also stripped out the competitive bidding requirement and removed the provision which would have allowed our universities the option of participating.

In particular, I want to talk about the removal of the provision that would have required sharing of claims data, and I would remind us that the goal and the reason for having public employee health insurance is to help assure and maintain the health of those employees. It is not simply to pay for medical services, and if you are going to affect the health of the people you are covering, then you need to have claims data to know what is happening with their health. If you collect claims data and you learn that your public school employees are afflicted with back ailments for example, then you might be able to modify the benefits they are receiving or maybe their workplace design or their duties to address that problem. If you learn that your public employees were suffering from breast cancer or high blood pressure or diabetes, you might tailor the benefits to address what you have discovered.

So having the claims data is important not just because it can be used to bid out for a competitive policy and save money for the taxpayer, but, equally important, or maybe more importantly, because it is the tool that allows you to know what the health problems are of the population you are covering and how to make adjustments to address them. To not be able to have the claims data is like sending your child to school where they are tested, but you don't get to look at the test results. The test results are only reported in aggregate, which is what the House bill calls for--aggregate pooling that would be by region. That would be like getting a report card from your child and getting an aggregate test result from the 4th grade. It doesn't tell you what you need to do as a parent to help improve your child's education. That's why claims data is so important in this debate.

So as we look forward to the larger picture of the budget and the budget resolution and where I have said I am willing to look at a big-picture solution that would involve tough decisions, one of those is this important reform, public employee health reform, and a key element of it is the provision requiring the release of the claims data. So when the House substituted the measure and removed that provision, they underminded and defeated the intent of the proposal.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) "no vote explanation of " Reps. Marleau and Meltzer [by Admin003 on September 12, 2007]
Reps. Marleau and Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

These bills, in their original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bills would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, the bills were gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform.

As amended in committee, these bills lack competitive incentives and put too many restrictions on school

administrators trying to put money into the classroom. Powerful special interests were successful in their efforts to undermine the bill sponsor's intent.

We had an opportunity today to make some real reforms and provide our school districts and the state options to save money without reducing employee health benefits. I will continue working for meaningful reforms that will allow school districts and the state to save money while still providing high quality heath care."

Reply New Comment

Line

5) Rep. Agema's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 12, 2007]
Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

SB 418,419,420,421 in its original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bill would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, these SB bills were gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform bill.

As amended in committee, this bill lacks competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. Powerful special interests were successful in their efforts to undermine the bill sponsor's intent.

We had an opportunity today to make some real reforms and provide our school districts and the state options to save money without reducing employee health benefits. I will continue working for meaningful reforms that will allow school districts and the state to save money while still providing high quality heath care."

Reply New Comment

Line

6) Rep. Shaffer's "no vote journal explanation" [by Admin003 on September 12, 2007]
Rep. Shaffer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

SB 418, in its original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bill would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, SB 418 was gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform bill.

As amended in committee, this bill lacks competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. Powerful special interests were successful in their efforts to undermine the bill sponsor's intent.

We had an opportunity today to make some real reforms and provide our school districts and the state options to save money without reducing employee health benefits. I will continue working for meaningful reforms that will allow school districts and the state to save money while still providing high quality heath care."

Reply New Comment

Line

7) Rep. Palsrok's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 12, 2007]
Rep. Palsrok, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

SB 418, in its original form, would have increased competition and lowered healthcare insurance rates for our public employees. The bill would have saved schools and the state money without diminishing the quality of health care coverage. Unfortunately, SB 418 and the entire reform package was gutted in committee and can no longer be considered a reform bill.

As amended in committee, this bill and the entire reform package lacks competitive incentives and restricts pooling options. Powerful special interests were successful in their efforts to undermine the bill sponsor's intent.

We had an opportunity today to make some real reforms and provide our school districts and the state options to save money without reducing employee health benefits. I will continue working for meaningful reforms that will allow school districts and the state to save money while still providing high quality heath care."

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Rep. Huizenga's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 12, 2007]
Rep. Huizenga, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I have reluctantly voted no because the majority party chose to gut the real reform in this and the subsequent tie-barred bills. There is no real reform present in this bill but rather is an attempt at window dressing and the appearance of reform."

Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the Senate on September 30, 2007. Failed in the Senate (19 to 17) on September 30, 2007. New Comment

1) Revealing [by edgineer on October 2, 2007]
It certainly reveals who is and who is not supporting the public will.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Sickening [by jercommm on October 1, 2007]
How disgusting to see our Legislators, especially the Democrats do whatever the MEA demands of them for their money and votes. Taxpayers be damned; and pay more income tax plus a new and constantly being added to service tax.
You people make me sick!
Reply New Comment

Line


Received in the Senate on September 30, 2007. Passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on September 30, 2007. New Comment

1) teacher [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
As a teacher, I would be more than happy to "settle" for the insurance package that the legislators have voted for themselves. For that matter, I wouldn't mind their salaries either. Funny, they jump immediately on teachers, working families, and "service" people, while taking no cuts into their own hefty benefits. Do you have any idea how much their self-selected salaries and benefits have contributed to the Michigan economic problem? Unfortunately, term limits means that they can "stick it to us" in less time, without political liability.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) RIGHT ON! [by inform4 on October 2, 2007]
Teachers are public sector employees. Michigan teachers receive one of the highest salaries and benefits in the country. Since their salaries and benefits are supplied by the taxpayers everything should be open for public viewing.

The private sector taxpayers are being hit on all ends with cuts in salary, benefits to say nothing about the loss of employment. Therefore, any means to cut costs for the general, private sector public should be and MUST be done.

Michigan is no longer a gravy train for unionized public sector employees!

If the private sector keeps getting hit with ever increasing taxes, and more job losses then you'd better start wondering how many teachers will be losing their jobs next, because of many in the private sector leaving the state and taking your students along with them. Hmmmm?
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Seriously [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
See what you don't understand is, by "highest paid in the county" does NOT mean high-paid. You can pay me $5 an hour and compare me to all the $3/hour people and still claim that I am the "highest-paid in the country." And that means what? And why shouldn't teachers be high-paid? They have way more schooling than most of the average public. Shouldn't advanced degrees count for something?
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Anonymous [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
MESSA has had a monopoly on healthcare for many years. Unfortunately, the only way to allow a free market in a case like this is to support this legislation, which I do. Thanks for having the courage.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Re: MESSA [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
You're incorrect there. MESSA does not have a monopoly on providing health care services. Only about half of the state's school districts are involved with MESSA.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Sold Out [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2007]
Sold out again by Senators playing at being "big people". Dont expect my vote for any of you for anything in my life time.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Bishop [by Anonymous Citizen on October 29, 2007]
Mike Bishop should be removed from office!
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

A free public service of Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

Search legislation: