By CRISTINA JANNEY
Hays Post

Representatives of the teachers’ and custodians’ unions fired back today after the Hays school board was critical Monday of the unions’ attempts to block a move from a state health insurance plan administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The school board received a letter from the unions two hours before a special meeting Monday during which the board planned to take action on the insurance change. In that letter, the unions threatened to sue the district if it left the state insurance plan.

The district began studying a move away from the state plan after two years worth of large premium increases, equalling $1.4 million. The district faces up to a $200,000 penalty for leaving its state contract early, but the Aetna plan promises to save the district at least as much or more than the state plan’s penalty.

Administrators argue benefits are comparable and a move to the Aetna plan would allow the district to be more flexible and garner more bids for insurance in the future. The state plan does not provide a claims history, which makes other insurance companies reluctant to bid.

If the district leaves the state plan, it can’t return for seven years. This concerns the unions, according to Kathy Rome of Kansas National Education Association-Hays and Esau Freeman of Service Employees International Union, which represents the custodians.

“What if the new insurance company has lower rates for us to enter into their company and then they rise dramatically? What if problems arise with benefits or the insurance company paying as they say they will? We have no recourse to go back to the BCBS company that we had for seven more years,” Rome said in written responses to Hays Post questions.

Superintendent John Thissen noted during an earlier board meeting the district could go back to Blue Cross Blue Shield as a part of an independent contract.

The district did seek a bid from Blue Cross Blue Shield when it initially starting looking to leave the state plan. However, the premiums were excessively high. Thissen said BCBS had no incentive to offer a competitive bid at this time, because it is bidding against itself. The state plan does offer an option through Aetna, but the Hays unions have opted for BCBS, Thissen said.

“It is not a matter of BCBS. It is a matter of the state plan,” Thissen said Wednesday.

For SEIU, staying with BCBS is an issue of consistency.

“SEIU believes that one in the hand is worth two in the bush,” Freeman said. “Blue Cross Blue Shield has a track record of consistent coverage. The fact of the matter is that you get what you pay for, and we believe that BCBS is quality insurance we have grown to trust and depend on. USD 489 employees deserve quality benefits for the top-notch service they provide to the Hays community.”

Rome said the NEA had concerns about potential changes in providers that will accept Aetna. However, board President Lance Bickle said at Monday’s meeting Aetna as a national provider has a larger network than Blue Cross Blue Shield, including over 96 percent of the area’s providers.

Rome said teachers have expressed concern about Aetna itself.

“We have talked to people that have Aetna and there seem to be continual problems with this company,” she said. “The Wichita school district went to this company and so many employees have had issues that the district has threatened to pull out if Aetna does not get some of those issues worked out.”

SEIU also has concerns about Aetna. It represents other bargaining units within the state that already have Aetna insurance, and Freeman said those union members have expressed concerns with Aetna processing claims.

Thissen said the district did look into Aetna’s track record.

“You an look across the state, and I’m sure there are people who have had negative experiences with Blue Cross Blue Shield claims,” Thissen said. “What we had heard about Aetna is that people were pleased.”

The law requires insurance benefits to be negotiated, but it does not require insurance providers to be negotiated. However, the SEIU contract, which represents 28 custodians in the district, specifically states the district must provide the state insurance plan.

Thissen said this was language that had been taken out of the teachers’ contract, but, for some reason, was left in the custodians’ contract.

Board members expressed frustration Monday night at the late timing of the unions’ letter to the board. However, Rome argued the letter was sent as soon as it could. Rome said the unions were led to believe the board was not ready to make a decision on the insurance provider.

Rome contends the union was not informed until Friday afternoon that the insurance issue would be on the Monday special meeting’s agenda. Rome added the teachers’ union hoped to resolve the insurance issue during a negotiation session Monday that went until almost 5 p.m. Freeman said the SIEU was told the deadline to decide on the insurance provider was Oct. 1.

School board members said at their Aug. 21 regular meeting it intended to call a special meeting to vote on the insurance provider. A story announcing the date and time for the special meeting and its agenda was posted on the Hays Post on Wednesday, Aug. 23.

The board choose to set a special meeting to address the insurance issue because action needed to be taken as soon as possible if the district hoped to make the provider change in time for 2018.

The district spent several months conducting meetings with teachers and staff about the potential insurance change and sent out an insurance survey to every employee in the district. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed who attended one of the district’s insurance informational meeting this summer said they thought the district should change to Aetna.

Rome took issue with the district’s survey.

“The two surveys that were sent out were created and sent out through this consultant (Gallagher Company) and went to ALL faculty and staff. These surveys had very biased questions and they were NOT a representation of the teachers, of which Hays NEA bargains for,” she said. “Therefore, the Hays NEA created their own survey, which WAS shared with the superintendent to pass on to the board of education.”

The Hays Post requested the Hays NEA’s survey, but has not yet received it.

Rome said the Hays-NEA was mindful of the cost of insurance to taxpayers.

“We do believe that we need to look for insurance that does not cost the district this much money,” she said. “However, we believe there needs to be some research done and some questions asked of other school districts/entities that carry this insurance to find out what the real issues are before we jump into this company and break the contract with the current company.”

The Hays-NEA and the SEIU both said they have been willing to work with the district on the insurance issue and have worked with the district in the past on salaries when state funding was lacking.

“We are more than willing to be a cooperative part of this health insurance change,” Rome said. “The communication and actions need to follow the correct and legal procedures, and we need to be a part in this major decision that affects our bargaining unit members.”

Freeman said, “We simply have concerns about the difference in the quality of cost on paper and actual value in services provided by Aetna. Past services provided by this insurance behemoth gives us cause for concern and apprehension about actual future performance. Saving money on the front end doesn’t make up for the headaches on the backend.”

The school board is still considering another special meeting to further discuss the insurance issue. If a date can’t be found, the issue will likely be on the board’s regular meeting agenda on Sept. 11.

—————————————–

Rome’s complete answers to the Hays Post’s questions are below:

It is my understanding state law requires benefits to be negotiated with unions, but not necessarily the network. I am incorrect in that?  The state law does require insurance benefits to be bargained.  That is a mandatorily negotiable item.  The insurance company is not mandatorily negotiable, but most often, changing the company also has an effect on the benefits and the network (providers that take the insurance).  The benefits of the Aetna plan ARE different than the current plan. At the current time, we still have NOT seen a list of the providers, so there is no guarantee that the doctors, hospitals, etc. that our teachers currently use will be on the list of providers for the new insurance.  So, the “benefits” will be changed with this new company.

Was the union during negotiations told the school board would not be voting on an insurance provider change until a later date? On which date was this stated? When did they say the issue would come to a vote?  There was very little talk about the health insurance during the negotiations sessions.  The union WAS led to believe that the board was NOT ready to act on this issue and then suddenly we were made aware (on Friday afternoon, Aug. 25) that it was an action item on the agenda for the special board meeting on Monday, Aug. 28.

Why did the KNEA send the letter to the board at 5 p.m. the day they were supposed to vote on the issue?  Again, Hays NEA WAS led to believe that the board was NOT ready to act on this issue and then suddenly we were made aware (on Friday afternoon, Aug. 25) that it was an action item on the agenda for the special board meeting on Monday, Aug. 28. Thus we worked with our legal counsel and the SEIU union throughout the weekend to compose a letter to make the board aware of the seriousness of this decision and how it would affect the current contract language in both agreements.  Both unions met on Monday afternoon to negotiate, giving the board the opportunity to address it.  The teachers’ negotiations session went until close to 5 p.m.; thus, the letter was presented to the board at the earliest possible time.   

Why do the teachers and custodians unions wish to stay with Blue Cross Blue Shield?  Both Hays NEA and SEIU are both very concerned about the current insurance and the cost to the district. Both unions are and have been very willing to research other options.  However, we currently have a contract with the State of Kansas Non State Health Plan that runs through 2019, and to break that contract will cost the district some money.  More importantly, if we break that contract, we cannot re-enter into that insurance group for seven years. That is a major concern of ours. What if the new insurance company has lower rates for us to enter into their company and then they rise dramatically? What if problems arise with benefits or the insurance company paying as they say they will? We have no recourse to go back to the BCBS Company that we had for seven more years.

Is their problem with the Aetna plan or just a move to any plan other than BCBS?  Yes, there are MANY major concerns with Aetna! We have talked to people that have Aetna and there seem to be continual problems with this company. The Wichita school district went to this company and so many employees have had issues that the district has threatened to pull out if Aetna does not get some of those issues worked out.

What other if any factors do you think the board should have taken into account in making this decision?  We are very mindful of the cost to the taxpayers. We do believe that we need to look for insurance that does not cost the district this much money; however, we believe there needs to be some research done and some questions asked of other school districts/entities that carry this insurance to find out what the real issues are before we jump into this company and break the contract with the current company.

Why didn’t representatives of the union or any teachers or custodians speak at either meeting this was discussed if they were so upset?  There has been dialog regarding the insurance issue with the superintendent since the original presentations that were given last June.  A survey was sent to the teacher’s bargaining unit and that was shared with the superintendent, as well as concerns about jumping into a quick decision.  Also, there was no public forum on the agenda for the special board meeting Monday night, so there was no opportunity for anyone to speak at this particular meeting.

Were there problems with the meetings and surveys the district conducted on health care policies? The district hired a consultant who has been pushing Aetna since the very beginning. The two surveys that were sent out were created and sent out through this consultant (Gallagher Company) and went to ALL faculty and staff. These surveys had very biased questions and they were NOT a representation of the teachers, of which Hays NEA bargains for.  Therefore, the Hays NEA created their own survey, which WAS shared with the superintendent to pass on to the board of education.

What else do you think the public needs to know? I think the public needs to know that Hays NEA has had a great working relationship with the district in the past years and continues to strive to work with the district and board of education in a positive way.  When money from the state has been slim the past eight or so years, Hays NEA settled for little or no raise, with teachers getting no movement on the salary schedule for many years. This shows the willingness of Hays NEA to work with the district and the understanding that the teachers have of tough situations and inadequate state funding. We are more than willing to be a cooperative part of this health insurance change.  The communication and actions need to follow the correct and legal procedures and we need to be a part in this major decision that affects our bargaining unit members.

Freeman’s complete answers to the Hays Post’s questions are below:

It is my understanding state law requires benefits to be negotiated with unions, but not necessarily the network. I am incorrect in that? That is my understanding as well, however the network chosen has a direct effect on benefits. The quality of the benefit provided has a definite value. 

Was the union during negotiations told the school board would not be voting on an insurance provider change until a later date? On which date was this stated? When did they say the issue would come to a vote? SEIU was not informed in negotiations that insurance would be taken to a vote. We were told that there were meetings being held over insurance and that the district was leaning towards looking at new insurance, they were looking for more flexibility. The deadline for deciding this was October 1, 2017 and we were told the intent with insurance is to keep as is. A language change with regard to the state plan insurance was discussed but no agreement reached. SEIU became aware of the vote on Aug. 22, 2017, via email from KNEA. Upon notice of the vote I called Bill Jeter and explained that if the Board was planning to vote on insurance we would need to meet again. I was then contacted by Tracy Kaiser via email on Aug. 22, 2017 telling me that Bill Jeter had informed her that we would like another negotiations meeting. We then scheduled a meeting for 2 p.m. on the 28^th.

Why did the KNEA send the letter to the board at 5 p.m. the day they were supposed to vote on the issue? KNEA would have to answer the question about the timing of the delivery of the letter. SEIU scheduled a negotiations meeting for 2 p.m., and I believe that KNEA had one at 4 p.m., I assume they gave it to them at the conclusion of the meeting.

Why do the teachers and custodian’s unions wish to stay with Blue Cross Blue Shield? SEIU believes that one in the hand is worth two in the bush. Blue Cross and Blue Shield has a track record of consistent coverage. The fact of the matter is that you get what you pay for, and we believe that BCBS is quality insurance we have grown to trust and depend on. USD 489 employees deserve Quality benefits for the top-notch service they provide to the Hays community.

Is their problem with the Aetna plan or just a move to any plan other than BCBS? SEIU represents other bargaining units within the state that already have Aetna insurance. Feedback from our members covered has a moderate rate of dissatisfaction with the number of mistakes and incorrect billings customers often endure. Occurrences of whole work groups being dropped from coverage due to errors and mistakes that waste consumer time and create infuriating hoops to jump through in order to sort out problems. There is a value to having coverage that simply pays what they are supposed to without all the headaches.

What other if any factors do you think the board should have taken into account in making this decision? I hope the board will consider that in this current economic climate there is a great level of uncertainty with regard to insurance costs and where they will be in the future. Although Blue Cross and Blue Shield are raising their rates there is no guarantee that Aetna will not raise its rates within the second year of providing insurance. There is also no guarantee that benefit options will not be reduced, or that the company won’t continually add more wellness points that must be achieved to secure a discount. I believe it’s also important to consider that once this decision is made it would be seven years before we would be eligible to return to the state plan in the event that Aetna was no better or God forbid worse than BCBS.

Why didn’t representatives of the union or any teachers or custodians speak at either meeting this was discussed if they were so upset? I don’t believe that upset is the appropriate emotion to describe the intent of the letter. The letter signed by the KNEA and SEIU was simply a way to say wait a minute, we don’t think this should be voted on until we’ve negotiated the change. I did not attend the Hays School board meeting because after the negotiations meeting it was stated that they would postpone the vote and we would talk more in the near future. I headed back to Wichita Kansas to attend the USD 259 school board meeting.

Were there problems with the meetings and surveys the district conducted on health care policies? Most of the feedback that I received was that the meetings were informative and that many positive attributes of the plan were shared. The Gallagher study looks a lot more like a push poll.

What else do you think the public needs to know? I think it’s important for the public to know what these employees have gone many years with little or no recognition or increase in pay. I hope the public will consider what the pay increases these employees have received over the past two years have been the result of selling back vacation days to the district. That due to the underfunding of our schools they have sacrificed and personally gone with less in order to accommodate budgets during these tough times. As funding returns to schools, we are encouraged and pleased with the way the district is choosing to put funds back into the classroom and invest in the future of this community. We simply have concerns about the difference in the quality of cost on paper an actual value in services provided by Aetna.  Past services provided by this insurance behemoth gives us cause for concern in apprehension about actual future performance. Saving money on the front end doesn’t make up for the headaches on the backend.