Laserfiche WebLink
line of duty as originally required <br />under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465. <br />b) The Legislature must avoid further <br />expansion of eligibility for benefits <br />under Minn. Stat. § 299A.465 unless <br />1) full funding for benefits is provided <br />by the state; and 2) beneficiaries can <br />be enrolled in a state health insurance <br />plan such as the Public Employees <br />Insurance Program (PEIP). <br />c) 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 />d) 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 />e) 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 />the benefits under Minn. Stat. <br />§ 299A.465. <br />f) 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 -11. 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 the costs and <br />administrative impacts of any new, <br />mandated insurance -related benefit <br />before imposing it upon city <br />employers. <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 (e.g., changes in provider <br />networks, changes in benefit levels <br />required by an incumbent insurance <br />carrier, changes required for <br />compliance with state and federal <br />laws, including those needed to avoid <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 80 <br />