Molly Janczyk to Sandra Knoesel: What else CAN we do?

From Molly Janczyk, September 27, 2006

Subject: RE: Restrictions considered

Dear Sandra, I find you a compassionate and professional person and have personally witnessed and been privy to your attention towards being fair. This is not directed to you, personally.

I, again, understand this is not now a motion or recommendation other than to look at it and wait for how the legislation ends up. However, my concern DOES NOT pertain to having plenty of advance notice as NO amount of time or notice will prepare me or many if not most other retirees for this type of action.

Age rating and restricting retirees from HC from their own pension system is prejudicial and shameful even if legal. There are ethics and there are fine lines of laws. 3-4 yrs. ago, I and others said over and over how retirees would be adversely affected by what has happened to us with HC. Some will die, or have, some refuse treatments now and cut or don't fill meds, sell homes, and use or used up their resources. TELL ME, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO?

STRS is killing and harming retirees literally. We CANNOT BEAR MORE, REGARDLESS OF 1 or 3 or 10 years notice. We have given all we have to give. THERE IS NO MORE ADJUSTMENT. We went back to work being robbed of our retirements if we were healthy enough and we got rid of everything we could if we couldn't work including homes, finances. WHAT ARE YOUR SUGGESTIONS?

1. Raise the retirement and service requirements for retirement: It WILL give plenty of notice and won't hurt anyone to work one or 2 or so more years if given ample notice years out.
2. Become your own PBM
3. Join with Ohio educators - active and retired for HC and any other public employees who will have us.

Even if HC legislation passes, it doesn't improve our status and only holds it somewhat. BE PROACTIVE TO GET US RELIEF!

WE NEED HELP DESPERATELY, NOT MORE HARM FOR THOSE WHO GAVE YOU JOBS!

I am horrified at what may happen and that STRS Staff and Board is EVEN considering such harmful and destructive restrictions.

Thank you, Sandra. But I know this content. It is what may happen that destroys me. WHEN and IF you tell me these items are OFF the table FOR GOOD, I will feel better.
It is clear, STRS is considering and waiting to see legislative outcome regarding age rating and restricting retirees from enrolling in STRS HC if they previously declined because they went to work unable to pay for STRS HC. This is beyond harmful to retirees who did nothing more than work to serve their communities and their children.

Molly J.

-------
From Sandra Knoesel, September 27, 2006

Subject: RE: Restrictions considered

Dear Molly:

Dr. Asbury asked me to clarify the issues that you are concerned about from the August Retirement Board meeting regarding the discussion on enrollment restrictions. Since I write the draft minutes for the health care and pension portions of the agenda, I regret if the issues were not explained clearly. I hope this e-mail adds to the understanding of this issue.

Before each Board meeting, the staff provides background materials to the Board on the issues that they plan to discuss. This information is provided in advance so Board members can be prepared for a full discussion of the agenda item. As you know, the discussion on enrollment restrictions came out of the Board's review of the effects of adverse selection on the STRS Ohio Health Care Program.

Adverse selection occurs when healthy people who are paying premiums but not using many services leave the plan. When these healthy enrollees leave the plan, their premium dollars are no longer available to help pay the claims expenses of enrollees who remain in the plan. Consequently, the premiums must increase even more the following year because of this "adverse selection." When healthy retirees who left the STRS Ohio Health Care Plan decide to return, we have data that shows these individuals have higher claims expenses. In short, some enrollment changes could help those enrollees in the STRS Ohio Health Care Program by keeping the increases in premiums smaller.

However, I want to emphasize that this is just one idea that the Retirement Board has discussed. Staff recommended that this idea be put on hold for two years until we know how the health care cost trends are shaping up for 2009. Hopefully by then, we will also know whether the health care legislative initiative has passed and if there will be a dedicated revenue stream for the health care program.

I understand your concern about getting plenty of advance notice of any possible changes to the health care program that are being discussed. The STRS Ohio Web site, newslist, active and retiree newsletters and various meetings across the state are some of the ways we are telling active teachers and retirees about important health care issues, like the health care legislative initiative.

Thank you for your input.

Sandy Knoesel