Emails, Tim Lee, executive director, Texas Retired Teachers Association, Nov. 14-16, 2017

2:45 p.m.

Nov. 14, 2017

My thoughts are that the lege did require retirees to pay more for lower benefits.

While trs was required to  cancel the free health care option (which was catastrophic only plan) that benefit structure largely survived as the  became the only option for under age 65 retirees. This new and only option would now cost a retiree $200/month and introduced the high deductible plan design.

The over age 65 population saw all there option cancelled and only a Medicare Advantage plan left for their coverage. Premiums were increased on all participants and resulted in an additional $162 million increase in projected premiums for biennium. Retirees will have to pay more for a lower benefit option.

As of January 1, 2018, most trs Care participants will pay more in premium or out of pockets costs due to these plan design changes.

Retired education employees are grateful to know they still have a health care plan to participate in, and that all parties involved (state, schools districts, active teachers, and retirees) are all working to put more in and keep the plan alive.

They also know, though, that the cost for health care is steeply increasing and more of that cost burden is falling to them to make up. Whether it is in increased premiums, decreasing benefits, or both, retired education employees are paying more for their health care.

TRS projected $ 1 billion shortfall this biennium. The legislature provided about $710 million in supplemental and permanent funding solutions for trs-Care. The remainder of the shortfall will be paid by plan participants in higher premiums and higher out of pocket costs.

On Nov 14, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) wrote:

You said Monday: “These are benefits these people had before that are not there now.” Can you specify what benefits will be lost as of 2018?

g.

8:31 a.m.

Nov. 15, 2017

Pre 65 will lose their traditional health care plan. They will no longer have a plan with traditional benefits that include copays for medical and pharmaceutical coverage. They will now have a high deductible plan that will increase their out of pocket costs. It may also influence how a retiree goes to the doc or receives their medical care. The regular session ended with higher deductibles and premiums. After the special session, the premiums were reduced and the deductibles were reduced from $3,000 to $1,500. This will help soften the impact of these changes, but retired school teachers and employees will need to manage their health care in such a way so they can afford the front-end Cost exposure far more than under the more traditional plans they had before these changes were adopted.

Over 65 retirees have lost access to a traditional Medicare supplement plan under trs. They will now have access to a Medicare Advantage plan only. The plan being offered is a reasonable benefit plan, but it does have markedly higher premiums, deductibles and out of pocket costs. Many docs and medical providers are flatly refusing to accept this new plan and retirees are weighing the choice of staying with the trs plan (one that they have paid their entire career to have access to via contributions from their paychecks while employed at an ISD and have always paid premiums for as a retiree) or leaving the system altogether to find a plan their doc is willing to accept. These are difficult decisions for retirees who have been a part of this system for over 30-years and are now told their choices are far more limited than before. Their spousal costs have nearly doubled. Many retirees simply cannot afford the $394/month for spousal coverage. Again, the legislature’s actions in the special session did provide more help to these retirees by lowering the new premium amounts (about a $50 reduction for spousal premium), but these amounts are still a heavy burden as the average trs pension is $2,000/month. And, many do not receive any social security. So, these premium costs have a major influence over a retiree’s ability to meet their costs of living.

Please understand, our members are extremely grateful for the lege working to keep trs-Care alive and as affordable as possible. We also cannot stress enough that the focus and the work of the lege during the special session did improve the situation.

It is not lost on retirees, though, that these changes completely altered their plan options and coverage choices. The benefits went down, the costs went up, and the plan is still on shaky ground.

Retirees will be unable to absorb massive benefit reductions and cost increases in the future. The legislature and school employees and retired educator plan participants must continue to work on this issue together. Not any one group can solve this problem on their own.

Is their any way you can share with me what parts of my comments may appear in your article? I’m focused more so on anything you may use about my interactions with Lt Gov. I may want to understand the context of any specific comment relating to him. I do not want to create a problem between any elected official and the TRTA.

I’m happy to continue our discussions! This is an important topic and I appreciate the focus on it.

Tim

6:21 p.m.

Nov. 16, 2017

My most significant area of concern is the seeming equivalence of some Medicare eligibles paying more and “some paying less.”  That subset of those paying less is significantly smaller than those paying more. If you recall, when we first talked I told you about a small group of retirees who did not qualify for Medicare A due to not paying the Medicare tax after 1986. In total, that subgroup is about 17000 folks. The majority of people paying more is north of 170,000.

Hard to believe this issue is as complicated as it is, but I stand by the statement that for the vast majority of trs Care participants, costs have gone up, benefits have gone down and the plan is on shaky ground.

Perhaps someone will have time to evaluate the funding differences between trs Care and the plan for state employee (legislator) retirees. But that’s probably a story for another day.

Tim