Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's labor deal relies largely on hard, verifiable cuts to achieve its $1.6 billion two-year target, but also includes hundreds of millions of dollars in softer assumptions about savings to be derived from things like retirement, employee suggestions and a healthier work force.
The deal now awaiting ratification votes by unionized state employees includes a two-year wage freeze worth $448 million--a hard number largely based on a 3-percent raise owed state employees on July 1. Another big number--an estimated $485 million in pension savings--is based in large part on changes to the way pensions are calculated and funded.
But the deal also relies on softer numbers, such as administration projections of $180 million in savings from employee ideas or assumption that enough employees will participate in a wellness-based health plan to save $205 million.
"Am I apprehensive that it's a bold target? Yes," said Benjamin Barnes, Malloy's budget chief, referring to the nearly $205 million in savings that hinges on workers taking better care of their health. But he added that the administration and union worked closely with health care actuaries--analysts who closely monitor health care trends and their associated costs. "The actuaries think it's a reasonable target."
A preliminary fiscal analysis released Tuesday morning by Malloy's budget office projects the deal, if ratified by unions and the General Assembly, would save $700.7 million in total in the fiscal year that begins July 1, and $901.2 million in 2012-13.
Nearly 13 percent of the total $1.6 billion biennial savings is tied to language in the deal that would press all employees and retirees to join a Value-Based Health Care Plan. In this program, workers would commit to have regular physicals and other key health screenings. Those who don't participate would face a $100 per month premium increase and a $350 per person deductible.
Barnes added that an important safeguard also has been built into the plan in the form of penalty premiums and deductibles for nonparticipants. The administration expects to raise $36 million annually this way, and if larger numbers refuse to participate than expected, this number will grow quickly. "It's highly punitive," he said.
The deal also counts on a workers and the administration finding another $75 million in savings over the biennium working on a health care cost-containment panel.
Another big target Malloy hopes to hit involves the cost-saving measures union leaders have long insisted that rank-and-file workers have wanted to implement--but past administrations have refused to listen.
Barnes said these ideas include everything from tax auditing changes, agency restructurings, utility conservation, reductions in unnecessary management, and other ideas under development. And though he said the administration hasn't performed a detailed fiscal analysis of each idea, it is optimistic that the "pool" of ideas workers have developed is sufficient to produce about $90 million per year in savings.
House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero, R-Norwalk, charged that nearly $500 million worth of projected savings in the first two fiscal years of the Democratic governor's deal came "out of thin air" with little to no justification. The minority leader particularly questioned the savings projections tied to the Valued-Based Health Plan and employee efficiency proposals.
"When you have ... $180 million in so-called savings that will come out of an employee suggestion box," he said, "that is really on shaky ground."
"Why aren't they making those suggestions now and why aren't their managers listening to them," said Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, who also objected to the four-year protection against layoffs that would be granted to all bargaining units that approved the deal. "Unfortunately, the more we see the details, the less there is to like."
Cafero also charged Malloy with flip-flopping on past opposition to relying on retirement incentives to balance the budget.
Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior adviser, and Barnes said the administration was anticipating questions and challenges about the savings assumptions.
But the projected pension savings were fully vetted by actuaries who were constantly consulted during the labor talks.
"The actuaries were on speed dial," Barnes said. "They were doing a lot of work for us."
Occhiogrosso said the agreement meets Malloy's goal of structural changes in the pension system that will save money now and for decades to come.
"He wasn't looking to destroy the system," Occhiogrosso said. "He was looking to save it."
Mark Ojakian, Malloy's chief negotiator on the deal, said Tuesday that the administration tentatively expects 1,000 senior employees to retire before a series of proposed rule changes designed to discourage early retirement kick in on Sept. 2--if the deal is ratified.
That would save an estimated $130 million over the next two years. In previous administrations, retirement incentive programs have been designed to replace about one-third of the outgoing workers with less experienced but lower paid replacements. Barnes said the administration hopes to replace only about 5 to 10 percent of the retirees under this plan.
Other more traditional components of the tentative agreement resemble past concession deals with state workers.
A two-year wage freeze would avert a 2011-12 pay hike authorized under the 2009 deal negotiated by then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell. That agreement called for a cost-of-living raise of 3 percent, plus step increases that would bring raises for workers close to 4 percent.
"I think the fact that you're asking state employees to take two years of a hard wage freeze is a sacrifice," Ojakian said. "They will be giving up that raise and another anticipated increase in 2013."
The wage freeze is expected to save $138.9 million next fiscal year, and - assuming workers might be able to secure a pay raise in 2012-13 through arbitration similar to the hike they would forfeit in 2011-12 - another $309.5 million in the second year.
Workers also would forfeit a longevity payment in October 2011.
About $140 million of that two-year, $485 million pension savings, stems from the earnings workers would lose through the wage freeze.
Hartford attorney Dan Livingston, the unions' chief negotiator, said in terms of dollars potentially coming from workers' pockets, the wage freeze was the most painful concession.
Livingston also expressed optimism about the potential fiscal success of the Value-Based Health Plan. Research showed that only about 12 percent of people covered on state health plans were getting the full range of treatments recommended for most listed diseases, he said.
Livingston added that some smaller bargaining units could begin voting on the tentative agreement as early as next week, though it likely would be several more weeks before the matter is resolved. But the union negotiator said he is optimistic the package would be ratified.
"My experience is when union leaders believe in something, when they think it's the right thing, when it's explained carefully and the members have an ability to get all their questions answered, usually the members agree," he said.
The deal also makes several changes designed to reduce state government's pension contributions, with projected savings of $237 million next fiscal year and $248.3 in 2012-13.
Proposed changes include:
The funny thing about wellness saving money is that increased productivity decreases wellness. Many people I know in IT, finance, manufacturing used to work out at lunch, play basketball twice a week at the Y, hit the tennis courts at 6 in the 1990's. Starting at 9/11 with the cutbacks, and going to the 2008 fiscal crisis, the basketball and tennis died and everybody put on about 25 lbs(from 6 ft 200 lbs to 225 lbs) as we are working too hard to keep our jobs to work out. Everyone is fit enough(many were college athletes) but
Read MoreThis is all smoke and Mirrors exactly like Rell did with the Unions in the Spring of 2009. The unions claimed $1.0 bilion in savings,Rell claimed $.7 billion and the actual was only $.2 billion. For proof lets look at the first claimed figure of $448 million saved by a wage freeze. They indicate there was a 3% wage increase promised. The facts are that the wages and salaries( excludes fringe benefits) of all the state workers is $3.0 billion. If you save 3% then you save $90 million the first year and $93 million the seconfd year for a
Read MoreI agree totally with what DonGonsalves states: It's all smoke and mirrors like the past only this time it's on steroids. I know this site is saturated with pro-union state workers and I am in the minority being a member of the private sector. I believe the state workers do not live in the real world. 100% of the money necessary to fund government operations comes from the private sector. Government does not and never has contributed to the GDP of our nation. The taxes state workers pay all originated from the private sector and
Read MoreDonG: I am going to try to answer your question. Let me know if this does not help.
You cannot use the 3% in calculating the effects of a hard wage freeze. The freeze includes the 3% general increase, step increases for those units that have them, top step bonuses, and a 5% freeze for units without step increases. Then in the second year, you get the first year freeze plus the additional freeze (so your $93 million figure should actually be $183 million).
Just for a rough estimate, take the $3 billion figure you cite. The $138,852,440 savings estimated
Read MoreArt: I am sorry you lost your job years ago, and for people in your situation, I can definitely see why you are frustrated. Still,...
You say "Government does not and never has contributed to the GDP of our nation." This is not entirely true. Money in the private sector does not necessarily contribute to the country's GDP. If that money purchases goods from overseas or goes into foreign investments, it may not help the country's GDP. If the government uses that money here, it can help the GDP.
For what it's worth, payments into the retirement system and employer share of payroll taxes also remain flat rather than increasing with a wage freeze.
I agree that it does not seem like much of a savings to freeze wages. However if you look at them for what they basically are, contractual payments which the state is legally bound to make which are being forgiven, it puts it in a somewhat different light.
I really don't think a lot of people on here will be happy until state employees have no health insurance, no retirement plan and take a
Read MoreI've read through SEBAC's and the State's agreement and I think it looks pretty good for both taxpayers and employees, ESPECIALLY considering the current economic and political situations. And the savings appear to be REAL!
Some people seem to be concerned about the "Value Health" changes in provision of health insurance. Those modifications are actually GOOD, and help to keep employees', retirees' and the State's premium costs down.
As far as these new "Value Health" provisions go -
At *LEAST* 99.99% of all insured people are ALREADY doing ALL of this stuff ANYWAY. In fact, I don't know ANYBODY
Read MoreI like it. Massive layoffs aren’t good for anyone. More foreclosed homes in our neighborhoods and thousands of more folks on unemployment won’t help our State one bit. The Heath Care Plan actually makes sense. Wow! Taking an active part in your own wellness is such an uncommon display of common sense. You will get a choice to participate in your own wellness or pay an extra premium for opting out (your choice). It is a very vocal minority of early to mid-50's aged Tier 2s that are the ones making the biggest negative noise. As usual,
Read MoreThis is more of a nightmare than I could have imagined. I was willing to take at least 12 furlough days a year and/ or reduce my work week to 35 hours and I don't care how they try & spin it, paying less $$$ for wages saves money. I urge all state employees to read this proposal with a magnifying glass before voting.For anyone younger than the age of 51 ..guess what??? If you can't retire before 6/30/22 you will be penalized 18% if you want to retire at 62. If you don't want the penalty , you're
Read MoreTo MichaelThoughts. Thanks. I forgot that a 3% increase in the public workplace is not really a 3% increase but much higher due to automatic step increases,longevity increases etc. I worked in the private sector all my life and a 3% increase was 3% and in addition it was not automatic and not everyone receive.
You seem to know a lot about what is going on and based on this I have a question for you. I am having a huge dispute with several people on the number of state employees. The article by Cibes indicates about 43,580 where
Steve you say the savings are real. Then you say that 99% of people are already doing the preventive medical. If they are already doing the preventive then putting it in the agreement will not save anything.
Do you work for Malloy or the union? You are trying very hard to convince people to take the agreement. Nobody in their right mind would turn down this deal.
The economy depends on the consumer. In July the consumer will be hit with increases in income, sales and property tax along with increased fees. We are already paying
Read MoreSEBAC SOLD US OUT, BIG TIME.
Remember, the unions (big guys with letters, not locals or the workers) are in it for self preservation.
AFSCME, SEIU, etc represent not only state but city/ town employees.
They shafted us to a) not lose the 1/4 million in dues per year from the staties facing layoffs but also b) avoid aid to municipality cuts which would probably lose them some city workers. In this together my rear end, more like in my rear end together!
It's not the wellness based value health program that's scary/questionable. It's the to be created VALUE ADDED PLAN that will be created 'LATER' which most people will be pressured into by virtue of the $100/month 'premium premium' on the 'Standard' plan offering.
Starting to smell like gov't run healthcare to me. I want details of this BEFORE I AM ASKED TO VOTE ON IT. This is where physician choice etc. IS AT STAKE!!!
He wants a Sustinet/socialzed type of plan. Start it at expense of state workers is a double win for him. Gets his plan and can have state
before deciding that you want the "Value Based" plan, be sure to carefully check what else is - or is not - included..... what if you need something other than a physical or colonoscopy that we keep hearing about? (ex. MRI's) It's YOUR health plan - you need to fully investigate how it will effect you before voting.
I can't believe the state employees that blog on this site do not see the actual picture. All your comments are strictly related to re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. This budget is just making the pumps work harder in orderto delay the actual sinking.
In order for this state to prosper economically we need to create an economic environment that will surpass Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and other states businesses flock to. It's not about staying on par with Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey. It's about beating them so businesses will flock to Connecticut.
Read MoreDonG: I responded on the other thread, but there were obviously a lot of comments there. Here is what I wrote there.
Cibes wrote: "The number of positions funded in the state budget for fiscal 2010 was 46,570, but the number of positions actually filled on May 31, 2010, was 43,583..." The key point here is that he is giving the number of positions listed as funded by the state budget. We would have to do more investigating to see why this number is lower than your numbers, but I suspect that much of it has to do with positions
Read MoreREAD IT CAREFULLY PEOPLE!!!!!!!
1) Value based health principles are good, keep youself healthy, manage health issues, etc. This is already offered in current plans, but it's not mandatory to participate. A penalty for not participating? Seems kinda Obamacarish, don't it.
DO NOT CONFUSE THIS WITH WHAT COMES IN LATER IN THE SEBAC STATEMENT- CREATE A ****VALUE ADDED PLAN**** TO GO WITH THE STANDARD PLAN FOR INSURANCE OPTIONS.
'STANDARD PLAN' GETS HIT WITH AN ADDED $100/MONTH PREMIUM....
WILL THE VAP BE A SUSTINET/GOVERNMENT PLAN FORCED ON US?????
GET ANSWERS BEFORE VOTING!!!!
THIS 'VALUE ADDED' PLAN *** WILL NOT EVEN BE
Art, Hmmmm, privatize lawn cutting on prison grounds. As opposed to having it done by inmates making $1.25 a DAY. Yep, I see savings there. And those guys in tan outfits picking up trash and mowing along the highway- same deal.
Parks? Mostly summer jobs for high school and college kids.
Granted, that crew of 5-10 inmates does need a staff person or two to keep An eye on them. Ah, we'll let 'em monitor themselves and save a bit more.
The whole agreement is intentionally worded to confuse and deceive. It's no coincidence that value based health management- overall a positive- sounds so much like the to be created Value Added Health Plan. An unknown that should be sending up red flags and big bright flares.
They also throw in that things in current agreement won't be binding after 2017 expiration.
But the extension will magically be valid and binding for the things that go into effect...AFTER IT EXPIRES!
Art- compare tax rates in states you're touting. Add in in many cases county and local sales & income taxes. They aren't leaving because of taxes. It's the cost of. .. private labor. For years UTC & EB workers milked the military teat and drove up their wages and benefits . Now these companies see that they can get same price from US government and get cheaper labor down south. Tough choice for them, huh?
To sharewhut,
I was referring to lawn mowing services on state property like the Capitol, Southbury Training School and other similar facilities. If the lawns are getting cut around the prisons by inmates, great. I see no reason why low level prisoners should not be mowing lawn on our state highways. Oh yes! I remember Rowland tried that once and was blasted by the unions for taking their jobs away.
If you're comparing taxes in states like Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina to Connecticut and Florida, why is Pratt all set to pack their bags and move
Read MoreTo Michael Thoughts- You seem like a reasonable,knowledgeable person however you make this statement "He is given the number of positions funded by the state budget." I have proven that this is incorrect by calculating the average pay and benefits per worker based on the budget and his number of employees.
Using his numbers then the average state worker is earning $69,000 per year and has benefits of $23,000 per year for a total cost of $92,000 per year. Every figure I have seen by anyone,liberal,conservative etc has been an average wage of $50,000 per year. I have
DonG: I do not think I was clear in my last post.
I think that when Cibes refers to the number of positions "funded" in the state budget, he is referring to the number of positions listed in those documents. If you look at the Governor's proposal or the Appropriations Committee recommended budget, for each agency you will see the number of "Permanent Full Time" equivalent positions the budget funds. For example, the Approps document lists 438 of these positions for Legislative Management.
If this is where he got his number, Cibes is using a very technical definition of
Read MoreDonG: Just to confuse things even further, the Census Bureau had CT with 66,498 FTE employees in 2009: see http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09stct.txt.
ROTTEN DEAL for employees and citizens.
Would be surprised if it garners enough support to pass.
"Larryeye2011":The savings ARE real. The ins. cos. will give the State a break on the premiums for FORMALIZING the practice with the Value Health docs. The 4-yeart (total) wage freeze is REAL. The additional 3% payroll deduction out of employees' paychecks for retirement healthcare investment is REAL. Malloy's rock-hard hiring freeze and RIF through attrition is REAL. The reduction in retiree pension benefits is REAL.
BTW - I'm not a State employee, not a politician or political appointee, and don't work for any union.
And NO STATE EMPLOYEE in their right mind would turn down this agreement because it's the
Read More"Larryeye2011":The savings ARE real. The ins. cos. will give the State a break on the premiums for FORMALIZING the practice with the Value Health docs. The 4-yeart (total) wage freeze is REAL. The additional 3% payroll deduction out of employees' paychecks for retirement healthcare investment is REAL. Malloy's rock-hard hiring freeze and RIF through attrition is REAL. The reduction in retiree pension benefits is REAL.
BTW - I'm not a State employee, not a politician or political appointee, and don't work for any union.
And NO STATE EMPLOYEE in their right mind would turn down this agreement because it's the
Read MoreWHY NO PENSION CHANGES FOR TIER I ??? It's criminal. What happened to shared sacrifice? Way to much burden on younger/newer employees.
Alynn,
I am 48, with almost 25 years in my union and will be voting YES for this concession package. I personally would rather have to work until 63 (with my 25 years) then lose 12.5% of my pay for going back to 35 hours.
The State has been pushing to increase the Tier II and IIA retirement age for a while and it was coming now or in 2017. I would rather agree to the change now, then give up 12.5% in pay for the next 3-4 years and then take the retirement age hit in the
Read MoreIt is time for term limits for state employees so that all citizens of this state can have a piece of the pie. Limit job tenure to five or ten years; that will do away with all of the BS we are now experiencing - no more ERIP, FTE, SERS, Tier I, Tier II, Tier A, SEBAC, and whatever. No more UConn police chiefs making $250,00 or UConn secretaries making $100,00! Opening up the state employee job market to all citizens will inject new thoughts and ideas into state positions and do away with complacency. No longer would it be
Read MoreSteve You may want to read what someone writes before you respond to it. What I said was that if 99% of people are getting preventive care (Your quote) then adding preventive care to the agreement would not be a saving. I did not mention the wages freeze or other items you mention. Not sure why you brought those up. Where are you reading that I said state employees are not consumers or taxpayers. IN FACT YOU MAKE MY ARGUEMENT FOR ME. If the state workers have less money to spend any business they can no longer
Read MoreHate to disappoint you Tom,
But I would guess that 90% of State employees hired over the past decade are civil service and received their jobs by taking tests and meeting specific education and training requirements. I know for the 5 people I hired the last 5 years that was truly the case. In fact, a person from DAS was involved in the interview process to make sure everything was kosher. They made sure everyone got a fair/standard interview and that we fairly evaluated each applicant.
I would think most union people are civil service. Where what
Read MoreBefore I can tell if this agreement is a good thing for state employees can anyone tell me why the following language appears in the "deal" link above but doesn't appear in the "summary of the agreement"?
"IV. Pension
a. Cap salary that can be considered as part of an individual's pension benefit as provided under the Internal Revenue Code. The parties will meet and review the list of payments which are presently included in the calculation of an individual's salary for pension purposes. In the event the parties agree to
Rich I took Tom remarks to mean that the system should be changed. Someone would do state service for 5 or 10 years and then move on. Kind of like the Peace Corp. This would lead to new ideas as people changed. You would still hire qualified people but you would not have people sitting around waiting for ERIP to pad their pension. This will never happen but I think in a perfect world it would be a good idea.
One of Malloy's people said the other day that they expect 1,000 people to retire
Read MoreRich Follow up to previous response. Working in the private sector we hear these stories about people waiting for ERIP. Or we see 5 people around a hole watch as one person does some digging. The state employees we deal with most often are at the DMV. They move so slow it is painfull. You sit there waiting because they have no motivation. If I moved that slow (and I am old) I would be fired the first day. I know there are a lot of hard workers that we do not see but when you
Read MoreThis is your big chance, Tom. You can also get in on your cut of the pie. Report to the nearest State Prison for your turn at being a prison guard. Or, you can go to the nearest Social Services office and get your boxes with the files of the 1200 welfare clients you will be servicing. You folks think government work is like working in a factory making toasters. It is taking care of the infrastructure of this state; good, bad or indifferent.
Jimbo If the state was hiring there would be 1,000's of applications.No one is saying those are easy jobs but they are also not the hardest jobs in the world.
Tom,
The Galleys at Big Cheshire are about ready! Gonna need 'em when Enfield shutters.
But I think he'd be better suited to rover post at Webster!
posup321-
Open the 2017 agreement and anything can happen.
You set a precedent that it can be done.
Really no legal limit on what can be broached once you've cracked the seal That's why SEBAC was so careful to use word 'Discussions' instead of 'Negotiations'. They can't legally 'negotiate' a closed agreement without members go ahead.
Make sure this is what you really want, folks, before you accept it. 'cause the toothpaste will be out of the tube and it'll be a he// of a mess to try to get any back in!
Art,
"If you're comparing taxes in states like Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina to Connecticut and Florida, why is Pratt all set to pack their bags and move there. Why are companies like BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota and Nissan not building cars in Connecticut. Why did Saab, Phizer, and that huge pharmaceutical in West Haven leave Connecticut. Could it be something to do with the high taxes and cost of doing business in Connecticut. I'm sorry your arguments do not hold water with me. We need to be in an economic position to compete successfully with these states."
Nope, it's
Get real people....what is wrong with you? This value based plan is taking away your rights....borders on being communistic. Do you realize how the information that the insurance companies will collect on you will affect you in the future, affect your families in the future? The deal is punitive, it is controlling, it is STATE RUN HEALTH CARE. You are being punished if you do not do what the state tells you to do. It is EXTORTION! Why were we not offered a DECREASE in our healthcare benefit if we voted for this value based plan?
Read MoreStevHC you have made some great points. This is a win win situation for all. At my work place most of the workers who will vote no beacuse of the health care changes were in the smokers area puffing away on their cancer sticks. To my fellow state employees I urge you to vote YES! If the agreement is not passed you will set the stage for a radical right wing anti labor environment. That would the beginning of the end for public unions in CT. Deal with the real world this is not the nineties or the John Rowland
Read MoreListe, folks, I have worked for over thirty years in private industry and significantly less in state government. I have worked at the biggest Fortune 100 companies in both rank and file as well as in management. The idea that employees in private industry are so much smarter than state workers is a big joke. Just as in the state, there are idiots in both industries. You have to understand most Americans are not smart people compared to the citizens of other countries so do not get carried away. All I have to say to state workers, vote
Read MoreONLY VOTE YES IF YOU WANT SUSTINET FORCED ON YOU!!!!!!!!
They're not telling us what the Value Added Plan is. Guess what- in 2012 when Health 'goes out to bid', this is what we're gonna get.
Link to whole Sustinet committee report, @150 pages is below. But this is our 'warning': page 8:
"We envision that the SustiNet health plan will provide
a common platform for reforming health care delivery
and payment.
******The plan will begin by covering those
for whom the state is currently responsible—that
is, state employees and retirees as well as Medicaid
and HUSKY beneficiaries.******
The initial
Read MoreCHECK OUT THE TIMELINE ON PAGE 40. THEY WANT IMPLEMENTING TO BEGIN BY JULY 1 2011.
HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE MEETING TO EXPLAIN IT TO MANAGERS. THEY LEFT WITH MORE QUESTIONS UNANSWERED THAN ANSWERED.
SET,
Agreed-the 'PETER PRINCIPLE' is a universal phenomenon!
As for smart,most other countries don't strive for equality in education. The kids get sorted according to their abilities and set on a course to maximize them. We insist (because of a gene to suppress the lawyer/sue 'em urge?)on forcing the brightest with the dim... I mean not quite as brightest in hopes of raising the lower. Instead we drag down, and divert resources from (time & attention) the brightest. We can't seem to accept the fact that, in the words of the immortal Judge Smails, "The world needs ditch diggers,
The writers of this article should be completely ashamed of themselves for making the statement" the deal relies largely on hard verified cuts". This is an absolute lie.Malloy said he was going to obtain savings of $2.0 billion from the workers over two years. Now he is saying $1.6 billion of which only $445 million is verified .The rest or $1.2 billion is based on wild assumptions. What a disgrace. It should also be pointed out that the increase is not 3% as indicated but 5% when you factor in step increases ,longivity increases etc.
Also in the private sector
a state controlled health plan? Not many Dr.s are gonna accept this ins plan. Or at least the better drs arent. There are so many Drs now that don't take husky plans because it pays so little, Do you really think drs are gonna jump to accept this ins, when reimbursments go down and incease in # of patients they need to see make $.Quality of care is gonna suffer. Look at the VA. Be real people this plan stinks and I'm voting NO NO NO.
Unfortunately we're skrewed. Vote no as a protest, and a statement. Fact is the health insurance contracts get bid on in 2012. They're going to make it impossible foe anthem et al to compete.
Memo came out today, no open enrollment this year. Not letting anyone else in. We'll be forced to bankroll SUSTINET start up before the end of the year.
sharewhut, is this true? Is there a copy of the memo anywhere online? I was planning to switch both my medical and dental plans this open enrollment period.....
This is the memo that went out. It's a DOC 'Roll Call Notice'.In the interest of self protection I did not copy/paste the Facility header or originator info.
"To be read from ____05/21/11___until and including _____05/28/11__
SUBJECT: Open Enrollment for Health and Dental Insurance
Due to the SEBAC negotiations, Open Enrollment will be postponed this year. As information is received, staff will be notified."