Cathleen Allison/Nevada Appeal Roger Maillard, 67, is a retired Nevada state employee who is concerned about Gov. Kenny Guinn's proposal to cut benefits for retired state employees. Maillard, who worked for 30 years for the state's Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation is shown Friday at the State of Nevada Employees Association office in Carson City.
There may be confusion on specifics of Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's plan to stop a state health care subsidy for future state employees once they retire - but there's no mistaking it would mean skyrocketing monthly costs for individuals and their families.
Guinn, who introduced the proposal in his State of the State address last month, said the state simply can't support the program, particularly when the same benefits are disappearing for local government and private-sector employees.
Guinn says his plan would save the state $500 million over the next 30 years, an average of $16.6 million annually. But the plan also would mean an employee who worked for the state for 15 years would pay more than 3.5 times as much money each month, from about $119 to $435, for the same coverage.
"My members have made it clear that they want us to do everything we can to stop it," said Scott MacKenzie, executive director of the State of Nevada Employees Association. "The thing I have a concern about is that we're talking about 30 years from now, so why do we have to make the decision today?"
Nevada would join 15 other states that offer no subsidy at all, said Stan Wisniewski, president of research firm Workplace Economics, Inc. A dozen states pay 100 percent of retirees' health care costs, he said.
"It's not a strong trend. One of the things when it comes to public employee benefits is that states don't change very rapidly," he said. "But the pressure has been on for the last three or four years, because of the high inflation of health care costs, to shift some of those costs to the consumer."
Under Guinn's plan, future state employees still could participate in the health care plan after retiring - something his office said hasn't been made clear in the press - but they would have to pay the entire premium themselves.
That's something Roger Maillard said he would hate to have to do. Maillard, 67, worked for 30 years for the state's Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. The state pays $316 each month for his health insurance. Maillard, who has no dependents, pays nothing.
The state money represents about 12 percent of his monthly retirement check, he said. Having to pay that much would be possible, but it would hurt.
"That's definitely a hit," he said. "You'd be forced to pay for it and you'd be forced to give something else up."
As a current retiree, Maillard's coverage is safe. So is that of all current state employees who have yet to retire - a fact that's also been a source of confusion. But Maillard said he has four grandchildren - and that's who he's worried about.
"Statistically, one of them is going to become a state employee," he said. "I'm looking out for them."
Maillard said often the retirement benefits he now gets came at the expense of pay increases during his employment. Without those benefits, he wonders how many people would seek employment with the state.
But Guinn said he doesn't think cutting the subsidy would be a deterrent.
"I don't think you can find anybody that comes here and goes to work that says I won't go to work for you if you don't pay my hospitalization and medical for the rest of my life once I retire 30 years from now," he said.
Greg Bortolin, Guinn's spokesman, said the governor wanted to point out the expense of the program for the state's 22,000 employees. Guinn himself called the proposal a concept and said he'll go to the mat to explain the idea to legislators.
"These are the kinds of things that need great discussion," he said, adding that if lawmakers decide "this is not the way they want to do it, it's not the way to do it."
Guinn also has noted that the state has paid for Medicare for state employees since 1987, and will continue to do so for new state hires.
Some are questioning why the state would get rid of the subsidy altogether instead of just decreasing it. The state's subsidy level for health care is in the 50th to 70th percentile nationally, according to Woody Thorne, executive officer of the Public Employee Benefits Program.