Laserfiche WebLink
the benefits under Minn. Stat. <br />§ 299A.465. <br />e) Employees who receive a police and <br />fire disability retirement benefit and <br />accept another job that offers them <br />group health benefits should be <br />required to pay for their group health <br />benefits with the city should they <br />decide to continue them. The <br />Legislature must amend Minn. Stat. <br />§ 299A.465 to reflect that employees <br />are required to inform the city when <br />they become eligible for coverage <br />under another group plan and that <br />failure to do so is grounds for <br />termination from the benefits granted <br />under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. <br />HR-14. Health Care Insurance <br />Programs <br />Issue: Cities, like other employers in the <br />state, are struggling with the rising costs of <br />health care insurance for their employees. In <br />addition, cities must cope with unfunded <br />mandates imposed on them by the <br />Legislature such as the requirement to pool <br />early retirees with active employees and the <br />requirement to bargain over changes in the <br />"aggregate value" of benefits, even when the <br />city's contribution has not changed. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports legislative efforts to <br />control health insurance costs while <br />maintaining quality health care services. <br />However, cities have differing local needs <br />and circumstances and must retain the <br />flexibility to provide unique and creative <br />solutions to the rising costs of health care <br />insurance for their employees. The <br />League: <br />a) Opposes legislative action that <br />undermines local flexibility to manage <br />rising health care costs. <br />b) Encourages the Legislature to <br />carefully examine any new, mandated <br />insurance -related benefit before <br />imposing it upon city employers to <br />make sure it does not contribute to the <br />rising cost of providing health <br />insurance or create conflicts with <br />federal mandates. <br />c) Supports changes to Minn. Stat. <br />§ 471.6161, subd. 5, that would clarify <br />the intent of the subdivision is to <br />address changes in cost vs. changes in <br />value. For example: (1) a change in <br />provider networks does not constitute <br />a change in the "aggregate value of <br />benefits;" (2) a change in benefit levels <br />required by an incumbent insurance <br />carrier does not constitute a change in <br />"aggregate value." In addition, the <br />League supports changes to Minn. <br />Stat. § 471.6161 that would clarify <br />that an exclusive representative of a <br />local government bargaining unit may <br />not use the provisions of Minn. Stat. § <br />471.6161 to block a local government's <br />compliance with state and federal <br />laws, such as the provisions of federal <br />health care reform or to incur the <br />federal excise tax known as the <br />"Cadillac Tax". <br />d) Supports changes to Minn. Stat. <br />§ 471.61 that would allow cities to pool <br />all retirees (those under or over age <br />65) separately from active employees <br />to help cities avoid the liabilities <br />associated with the new Government <br />Accounting Standards Board (GASB) <br />requirements on "implicit subsidy." <br />At a minimum, limit the requirements <br />to continue coverage and to pool <br />retiree claims experience to the date <br />the retiree and/or dependents become <br />eligible for federal Medicare coverage. <br />e) Supports a clarification to Minn. Stat <br />§ 471.61 and to Minn. Stat. § 471.617 <br />to explicitly alleviate a city's <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 81 <br />