PEIA Board Fights Budget Bill

With less two days left in the 2016 Legislative Session, members of the Finance Board for the Public Employee’s Insurance Agency, or PEIA, have serious concerns about the changes to the state budget with regards to the agency’s funding.

The budget bill, containing a line item to take $67 million dollars from the state’s rainy day fund and other special accounts in order to fund PEIA, was debated for several hours on the House floor Friday.

During this session, the Democratic Party has criticized the majority for ignoring the need for additional funding to PEIA, while some Republican members argue the current budget does fully fund the program.

In a press conference this morning, six people spoke in direct opposition the current budget bill, saying there is no agreement between the House and Senate leadership on how to fund PEIA, an agency that provides health care coverage for more than 230,000 West Virginians.

Joshua sword is Secretary-Treasurer for West Virginia AFL-CIO and a member of PEIA Board.

“We’re facing roughly $50 million to $60 million dollars in inflation every year, as well as adding new people to the book, so we’re roughly $100 million short for the next plan year,” Sword said. “The legislature promised us that they were going to come up with a dedicated revenue stream for 2016 and beyond and here we are at days 59 and 60 and they haven’t done that.”

PEIA has seen no additional funding for the past few years, yet an increase in membership and rising prices. In previous years, the agency was able to offset benefit reductions with reserve funds, which came from what could basically be considered a savings account the agency built up with excess revenues over the years. Sword says dipping into the one-time dollars is a temporary fix, one that will leave the program even worse off next year.

“The problem that creates is that it might make it okay or doable for the plan year 2017, but when we start talking about plan year 2018, we have to make up that $67 million plus the additional rate of inflation we’re facing for the following year,” Sword said. “It puts us right back in the same place where we were when we start this discussion a few months ago, at roughly $120 million in benefit reduction for the next year.”

House Finance Chairman, Eric Nelson, defended his committee’s budget on the floor Friday, saying they had to consider all options in the extremely tight budget year.

“I will say that our budget is in very difficult time right now,” Nelson said. “Whether it be revenue measures or other expense cuts, or additional cash sweeps, all of those are on the table and need to be on the table. A 60-day session is not sufficient time for this body to be prudent.”

Other Republicans defended the measure as well, including Delegate Michael Ihle, who is also the mayor of Ravenswood.

“We’ve heard a lot about 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 West Virginians, who get PEIA,” Ihle said. “What about the other six out of seven? Many of whom have had their insurance skyrocket by a lot more than 12 percent, if they’re even lucky enough to have insurance.”

Earlier this session, a bill was killed in the House Finance Committee that would have increased the tax on a pack of cigarettes by one dollar. The Senate had approved the tax and dedicated some of the revenues to the PEIA reserve account, allowing the program to help sustain itself into the future.  Both Democrats and Republicans voted against the bill in the Committee.

Liability, Non-Partisan Elections, & Labor Cause an Uproar in the House

For years, Republicans have called for nonpartisan election of Supreme Court Justices. But the Democrats never put the issue on the agenda. Now having taken control of the House, Republicans finally got their wish.

Before confronting that issue, the house took up Senate Bill 13, which protects a landowner from liability if someone is injured on his or her property.  The bill re-instates the open and obvious doctrine.  It means a property owner won’t be responsible for injuries that a person sustains if it’s clear what the conditions are.  

Delegate John Shott, chairman of the Judiciary committee, stood to explain that this bill would be worthwhile.

“What we’re doing here is, today if we vote in favor of this bill is saying that regardless of a few remote horror stories, we think its legitimate policy of this state to protect those people who have premises. In those situations where the injuries caused by something as well known and obvious to the person who’s injured as it would be to the person who occupies those premises,” Shott explained.

Senate Bill 13 passed 81 to 18.

Then it was on to House Bill 2010, the non-partisan election bill.

Again, Judiciary Chairman Shott explained why this is good for the state.

“This removes the taint of a partisan election from the operation of our judiciary,” Shott said, “and it extends not only to our state’s Supreme Court of Appeals, but to our circuit judges, our family court judges, and our magistrates, and this is intended to remove any perception that those individuals might be beholding to a particular party organization or a particular group of people with whom that party is perceived as being affiliated.”

Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer stood to oppose the bill, saying voters want to know which party their candidate is affiliated with.

“Well in our state, we’ve had some pretty bad experiences with money in judicial elections, and there have been accusations that judicial seats have been purchased by individuals. By not knowing what party a person’s in, you are deprived of information, and that you otherwise would have in any other election,” Fleischauer said.

But the bill passed overwhelmingly 90 to 9.

But there was uproar about House Bill 2217, relating to the qualifications of the commissioner of labor. This bill changes the current definition of the labor commissioner by taking out the words “labor interests of the state” and inserts “with experience in employee issues and employee-employer relations.”

Delegate Mike Caputo, a labor representative, clearly did not like the bill.

“This is nothing, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, with all due respect but a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to the working men and women in West Virginia,” Caputo explained, “I just cannot believe that we’re about to vote on a bill that could allow a Don Blankenship to become the commissioner of labor in the state of West Virginia. I can’t believe we’re about the vote on a bill that someone who had nothing but the interest of the corporation at heart their entire adult life can now become the commissioner of labor. Now nothing against corporate executives, we need them, and they need to tend to the business of that corporation, so we can have jobs in West Virginia, but when it comes down to the grassroots level of that working mom, somebody needs to look out for her, and nobody’s going to look out for her other than someone who worked their entire adult life for a paycheck and took the interest of workers at heart.”

Delegate Michael Ihle spoke to try and reason with the word change, using an example from his own experience.

“I deal with both union and nonunion employees, and one of the accomplishments that we, and I do say we, have is a month into my term, we negotiated a labor agreement that was passed unanimously, and I say that not to brag on myself but to brag on our employees. But more relevantly, I say that to illustrate that the interest of management and the interest of labor are not always mutually exclusive,” Ihle said, “And I feel some of the rhetoric that I’ve heard from those who oppose the legislation reflects that belief that those interests must naturally conflict with each other, and I don’t believe that to be the case at all. I think if we’re to move our state forward, if we are to create an environment that is friendly to more jobs for both union and nonunion employees, all interest of labor, if we’re to do that, then we have to move beyond the mentality that labor and management are mutually exclusive.”

House Bill 2117 passed 64 to 35.

Exit mobile version