A tag-team campaign stunt by
state Rep. John
Bel Edwards and Atty. Gen. Buddy
Caldwell might cause some bureaucratic headaches and burn up some taxpayer
dollars, but in the end will make no difference to coming changes for health
care benefits for state employees, retirees, and some school district employees
– and may even hurt their 2015 electoral ambitions.
This week, Caldwell’s office
issued an opinion
stating that changes being made to the benefit packages had to have gone
through the Administrative
Procedure Act, upon the request by Edwards. The changes in most cases
likely would have the overall effect of increasing payments made by clients,
due to changes in deductibles, co-payments, and services covered. Using this
process for this matter has not been done in the past, and no one ever had
complained about it.
The Gov. Bobby
Jindal Administration, with good reason, disputes
the idea that the APA should apply to these kinds of decisions, but a
creative reading of the law possibly could shoehorn in decisions made about services
disbursed to a class of active and former government agents distinct from the
public, especially in the case of the retirees. It’s a reach and if Caldwell
had not wanted it to succeed, there was ample basis on which to reject that
line of reasoning. But by issuing it under his imprimatur, the controversy
could continue that could benefit certain parties politically.
Out of caution, the Jindal
Administration has submitted the batch of changes in the form of a rule, but
the legalities are such that through the regular process the earliest a rule
could take effect would be Jan. 18, 2105, beyond the Jan. 1 plan year start
date. Between now and then, the Division of Administration would have to
collect comments before the end of November, the relevant legislative committees
could review the rule in December and determine whether to accept it, and in
January Jindal could decide whether to accept a negative decision or to overrule
it and allow promulgation.
Which, if it came to legislative
disapproval, he certainly would overrule, so it’s a foregone conclusion that
the changes will go into effect. Additionally, it even can go into effect on
Jan. 1 if near the end of December DOA declares the changes in effect as part
of an emergency rule. These may be promulgated with instant effect for at least
up to a month while a review process commences, and historically the parameters
of these have been pretty broad (where DOA could fairly convincingly argue that
this qualifies because it avoids putting into deficit a “medical assistance program,”
or the provision of insurance to the OGB clients or that to continue at the old
levels would threaten to take money from other such programs to create
deficits). There is a process by which legislative committees could act quickly
enough to disapprove, even though Jindal would override, or outside interests
could sue to have a state court declare this not defined as an “emergency,” but
by then the regular rule would have come into effect.
So the practical import of the
opinion, if somebody were to challenge the existing changes on the basis of APA
violation and a court agrees to null these changes, is zero. Other than
creating a precedent for all future changes, if left unchallenged (for an
unsuccessful court challenge would negate the opinion’s effect on future DOA
actions in this regard) the benefit changes will go through and can go through
on schedule, although with the wasting resources in sorting out the conflict.
But that doesn’t mean the
citizenry’s loss isn’t anybody’s gain. Edwards wins because it brings him
attention and makes it appear that he’s on the side of the ratepayers involved.
Even if it’s inevitable, he gets credit for trying, and that could turn into
votes next year. The same goes for Caldwell, who of the statewide elected
executives running for reelection is by far facing the most serious challenge,
from former Rep. Jeff Landry.
However, it’s possible Edwards
and Caldwell may have miscalculated politically here. Ultimately, taxpayers and
ratepayers are responsible for ensuring for the funding the disbursement of
benefits. This could be turned around onto them in more or less direct ways.
What if next year, just a couple of months prior to the election, the state
announces rate increases and specifically notes benefit changes are off the
table precisely because of the fuss kicked up this year, where Edwards very
visibly led with his chin? Enterprising opponents of theirs can take it from
there, explicitly connecting Edwards and Caldwell to poor and politicized
policy-making decisions that triggered the increase.
And they will get no sympathy from
the majority of the state, the members of the taxpaying public whose earnings
allow the program clients to pay extremely below-market rates (typically the
state covers 75 percent of the bill, and often that much for retirees) for
coverage better than the “platinum” plans under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act. It would not be difficult to paint Edwards and Caldwell as
protectors of a special interest whose average total compensation, in part because
of the luxuriousness of the health insurance program, is significantly
higher than the typical private sector employee’s, or who gets part, if not
most, of its health care insurance paid when retired when the typical private
sector retirement package does not offer to do that – on the taxpayer dime.
In any event, recognize that this
entire sequence of events (Edwards, who successfully
agitated for a gripe session of the Legislature to be called about the
changes meeting today, may have been politically adroit enough to plan ahead on this as part
of a larger campaign scheme by asking for the opinion right after the Sep. 10
deadline for publication of a rule in the State Register had elapsed, in order
to try to mess up the implementation date) was designed not really to change
anything, but to score campaign points at the cost of needless use of state
resources. Whether the officials involved succeed on that account is another
matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment