Laserfiche WebLink
reimburse employers for the full amount of <br />administering this benefit. <br />Before 2008, many of the claims approved <br />under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 were for <br />injuries sustained while engaging in non- <br />hazardous, on-the-job activities such as <br />fitness training or office duties. The number <br />of eligible claimants combined with rising <br />health insurance costs began to strain the <br />fund. By 2002, the fund created to provide <br />this benefit became deficient. <br />Instead of increasing the fund, the 2003 <br />Legislature amended the law to pro -rate <br />reimbursements to cities based on the <br />amount available and the number of eligible <br />applicants. The 2003 law change triggered a <br />significant and unanticipated cost to cities. <br />Even if the health insurance benefit was <br />discontinued entirely, the costs for existing <br />recipients will substantially increase well <br />into the future due to the growing cost of <br />health insurance. <br />The 2005 Legislature attempted to mitigate <br />the impact of this law on employers by <br />providing additional reimbursement funds <br />and creating a stakeholder panel to <br />determine eligibility for benefits under <br />Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. However, the <br />Legislature preserved the language that <br />reimburses employers on a pro rata basis, <br />and the law continued to exist without the <br />definitions necessary to narrow eligibility <br />for the benefit and meet the intent of the <br />law. The panel, which expired on July 1, <br />2008, did not succeed in narrowing <br />eligibility for the continued health insurance <br />benefit, in part because the few claims <br />denied by the panel were overturned by the <br />courts. <br />In 2007, the Legislature attempted to limit <br />eligibility for PERA police and fire line -of - <br />duty disability benefits by defining "duty <br />disability" as an injury sustained while <br />performing activities that present "inherent <br />dangers specific to these professions." This <br />means public safety employees injured <br />while performing duties that do not present <br />inherent dangers would be ineligible for <br />line -of -duty disability benefits. Due to the <br />correlation that has been established <br />between the PERA police and fire line -of - <br />duty disability benefits and the continued <br />health insurance benefit under Minn. Stat. <br />§ 299A.465, early indications are that this <br />change is resulting in a decline in eligibility <br />for continued health insurance. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports the following legislative <br />actions to address the funding deficiency <br />in this program: <br />a) The state must fully fund programs <br />that pay for health insurance for <br />police and fire employees injured or <br />killed in the line of duty as originally <br />required under Minn. Stat. <br />§ 299A.465. <br />b) Cumulative injuries that occur over <br />time in the job should not qualify a <br />police officer or firefighter for benefits <br />under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 since <br />these types of cumulative injuries are <br />not unique to the dangers of police <br />officer and firefighter duties. <br />c) The Legislature must clarify that the <br />amount of an employer's contribution <br />under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 is no <br />greater than that given to active <br />employees in the same job class. <br />d) The Legislature must establish the <br />minimum criteria used to determine <br />ability to work, and set a percentage <br />threshold of disability for eligibility <br />into this program. At a minimum, the <br />Legislature must identify that a <br />workers' compensation determination <br />as to whether the injury is work - <br />related is necessary in order to receive <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 80 <br />