Saturday, March 22, 2014

Many who read this will be public servants actively working or retirees....

From John Curry, March 22, 2014
........and these are the people who need to know what ALEC has done and is doing re. their public pensions....and it isn't for your benefit! 
John 
"These pieces of legislation are uniformly disastrous for retirees and anyone who hopes to retire one day. They include initiatives to wipe out public pensions systems in favor of private 401(k) plans, regardless of how well the public pension is doing. Policies like this not only scapegoat and attack public services, public workers and collective bargaining but expose workers to higher fees, which go straight into the pockets of Wall Street bankers." 
ALEC: The New-and-Improved Political Corruption 
March 21, 2014
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been described as a "shadowy group" of companies and politicians working behind closed doors to rewrite our laws, frequently to bolster corporate profits at any cost. Over the last 41 years, ALEC has worked tirelessly to tear down many of the programs and protections Americans, particularly seniors, have come to rely on, and only recently have many of their objectives come to light. 
ALEC doesn't just exist in the backrooms of Washington, D.C.; they're also in the backyards of every community in every state, pursuing their agenda at the state and local level. When these representatives and corporations sit down at the table to craft "model" legislation, middle-class Americans don't win. 
These pieces of legislation are uniformly disastrous for retirees and anyone who hopes to retire one day. They include initiatives to wipe out public pensions systems in favor of private 401(k) plans, regardless of how well the public pension is doing. Policies like this not only scapegoat and attack public services, public workers and collective bargaining but expose workers to higher fees, which go straight into the pockets of Wall Street bankers. 
ALEC hasn't been content to stop with public pensions either; they continue to push for privatization of Medicare and Social Security, which would effectively end these programs as we know them. This push to hand over our most crucial earned benefits to the very same individuals who helped to engineer the financial crisis of 2007 is unacceptable. 
ALEC isn't invincible. The efforts of individuals across every state to shine light on ALEC's actions have produced clear results. Dozens of lawmakers have withdrawn their ALEC membership within the last few years. ALEC legislation has met with tough fights state by state, and it's just beginning. Protecting corporations' bottom lines at taxpayer expense has gone too far. It's time to expose ALEC. 
Learn about "Stand Up to Alec" here. Spread the word on social media here.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

STRS Board Meeting March 20, 2014

Issues from the STRS Meeting of Mar. 20th, 2014 

The new head of the STRS Investment Department, John Morrow reported positive returns of +11.6% estimated for February. All indices were positive and the total fund value was $72.8 billion dollars. The early report for the month of March was volatile especially last week caused by negativity to the Russia/ Ukraine situation. This week shows improvement since the sanctions by the U.S. turned out to be placed on Russian individuals only.
Following the Investment Department report, Mike Nehf, Executive Director of STRS presented a review of previous Board discussions of STRS Ohio funding. He mentioned that at the Board Retreat in January a lengthy discussion was held on the 30-year amortization of the pension unfunded liability and possible solutions were considered. At the February STRS Board meeting, he reviewed further funding discussions that occurred and shared a letter of support from the Health Pension Advocates (HPA) which indicated their approval of the health care funding change (directing the future l% employer contribution from the Health Care Fund to the pension fund beginning July 1st, 2014).
This health care plan was approved by the STRS Board and instructed Mr. Nehf to present the plan to the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC). There was agreement to continue to hold discussions with stakeholders and to study the impact of the health care funding change and to also explore a possible mitigating rate change to the Defined Contribution program.  At the March 7th STRS Ohio meeting, background was provided on the history of heath care funding as well as the history of the Defined Contribution program mitigating rate. The staff was directed to include these matters on the March 20th Board meeting. So today, it was shared that by directing future 1% employer contributions from the Health Care Fund to the pension fund beginning July 1, 2014 would reduce the unfunded liability of the pension fund by 4 years from 40.1 years to 36.1 years. It would also reduce the Health Care Fund's solvency to 20 years.
Another point mentioned regarding the Health Care Fund was that it was always an optional benefit whereas the Pension Fund benefited all STRS members. Today the Board approved unanimously to discontinue the current allocation to the Health Care Fund of 1% of the employer contribution beginning July 1st, 2014. Board member, Craig Brooks, added that in the future, the 1% will be considered to be replaced to the Health Care Fund.
The Board's actuarial consultant, the Segal Company recommended increasing the mitigating rate from 4.5% to 5.5% for the Defined Contribution program effective July 1st, 2014 which would mitigate the negative financial impact on the Defined Benefit Plan.  This has to do with the Defined Benefit plan and the Defined Contribution plan offered to universities which are known as the Alternative Retirement Plans (ARP). The legislature recognized the need for a portion of the employer contribution to be used to mitigate the negative impact of future faculty no longer participating in STRS (the mitigation rate is based on the 1997 benefit design). When the motion for these changes to the Defined Contribution program was about to be voted on today,  Board member, Mark Hill moved to postpone the proposed motion on mitigating rates to the April STRS Board meeting. The vote to postpone the vote was passed by 6 members voting for the postponement and 3 members voting not to postpone (Price, Stein, & Hayden). The reason cited by Mr. Hill was to give time for the HPA (the Health Pension Advocates) to further discuss the motion with the UAAL (the universities' union).  The head of the UAAL attended the March 7th STRS meeting and spoke of their disapproval of changing the mitigating rates. Craig Brooks also requested that the STRS staff conduct a study capping the COLA and to have it available by the April STRS Board meeting.
Nick Treneff, the STRS Communication Department, announced that no election would be held this March since there were no petitions received for the two contributing member positions of the STRS Board. Thus, Dale Price and Mark Hill were re-elected to their present positions on the Board.
Sandy Knoesel, Member Benefits Department, and Greg Nickell, Health Care Dept. shared that recent complaints regarding Express Scripts have been addressed with the assignment of 10 to 15 more staff to help reduce the amount of work necessary for an appeal whether by phone or by online. Doctors will now be able to go online to complete an appeal. There were questions regarding the Aetna Medicare Advantage plan and whether the current plan would be affected by Obamacare. Mr. Nickell said that the plan has not been affected since it is still the most successful health care plan.
The next STRS Board meeting will be April 23rd, 24th and 25th.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Did you get that little blue Aetna card from STRS for your flu shot?

From John Curry, March 17, 2014


You might want to read the fine print! 

John 

In 2011 Aetna began offering the Flu Care card to large self-insured employers and groups. Meadows got one because he has a Medicare Advantage plan as a member of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. 
The perk to the card, says Aetna, is that it serves as a reminder to get the flu vaccine and helps expedite the paperwork process for the consumer." 
As with most consumer financial products, the cards' terms are "take it or leave it" propositions that can't be negotiated, said Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general. 
"They encourage you to use the card with this easy-to-understand language and marketing material, and in the same envelope include a confusing legal agreement that I don't think most people in their elderly years would understand enough to know what they're giving up," said Meadows. "That seems like a shame to me.



Warning: These prepaid cards come with strings attached 



March 14, 2014 


The bright blue plastic card promised to make getting a flu shot easier for Bruce Meadows by letting him go to any nearby pharmacy.


But "why would I need a new card to get a flu shot when Medicare already covers (the vaccine), and I already have a Medicare card?" the 82-year-old Mason resident wondered. 


The flu shot card Aetna sent to Bruce Meadows of Mason was actually a prepaid card from Citi. (Photo: The Enquirer/Joseph Fuqua II )


While the card was sent from Aetna, Meadows' Medicare Advantage insurer, it actually was a prepaid card from Citi that works much like a credit or debit card. Cashing it in to get a flu shot meant Meadows could avoid paperwork hassles to get reimbursed by his insurer, but at the expense of giving up a slew of legal rights – including his right to a jury trial, class action lawsuit or appeal process – against the global financial giant. 


From flu shots to health savings accounts to checking accounts and more, consumers are increasingly being forced to weigh their legal rights against the benefits of easy-to-use credit or debit cards – prepaid or otherwise. 


The cards, like a growing list of other business contracts, include a provision that requires users to solve nearly all disputes out of court through arbitration. 


"If you were to look in your wallet right now, the chances are high that one or more of your credit cards, debit cards or prepaid cards would be subject to a pre-dispute arbitration clause," said Richard Cordray, director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during December testimony to Congress. 


The bureau is studying the impact that arbitration provisions are having on consumers. 


Supporters of the clauses say arbitration can be a more convenient, faster and cheaper way to settle disputes without the hassle of the courts. 


But opponents say the clauses rob consumers of their legal rights and are often packed with undecipherable legalese only intended to insulate businesses from potentially costly litigation. 


As with most consumer financial products, the cards' terms are "take it or leave it" propositions that can't be negotiated, said Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general. 


"They encourage you to use the card with this easy-to-understand language and marketing material, and in the same envelope include a confusing legal agreement that I don't think most people in their elderly years would understand enough to know what they're giving up," said Meadows. "That seems like a shame to me." 


A February report published by Pew Charitable Trusts shows a growing number of checking accounts and prepaid cards include binding arbitration agreements "that are confusing to most consumers, even if carefully read." 


The provisions are so prevalent in card contracts, according to the report, that they prevent consumers from shopping around to try to avoid the terms. The contracts even apply to programs like private health insurance plans – and with nearly 20 percent of all employer-covered workers enrolled in high-deductible health insurance plans last year, a growing number of consumers are likely to find arbitration language attached to their health savings accounts. 


"I think the public, generally, has no damn idea that they're getting hoodwinked into giving away the constitutional rights that our forefathers died for," said John Metz, a Hyde Park-based medical malpractice lawyer. "But more and more corporations are doing this – and the courts have said it's OK." 


US Supreme Court upholds arbitration clauseAmong the most notable cases upholding arbitration provisions is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows companies to block class-action lawsuits by forcing each complaint into arbitration. 


The decisionwas the result of a lawsuit filed against AT&T by a California resident who was charged taxes on the full retail price of a cellphone he bought at a discount. When the buyer pursued class-action status, AT&T pointed to an arbitration clause in its cellphone contract. 


"The courts have basically said they will not interfere with contracts, because they are so important to business, so more corporations are putting this in, and are essentially free of the justice system," said Metz. 


For its part, Citi says the language used in the pamphlet included with Meadows' Flu Care card is typical for all recipients of the card. 


“I don’t think most people in their elderly years would understand enough to know what they’re giving up,” Meadows says.(Photo: The Enquirer/Joseph Fuqua II)



"The arbitration agreement is included as standard with all Citi-issued prepaid cards," the company said in an email. "We continuously review and update our policies to ensure they are appropriately designed and compliant with all applicable regulations." 


The company added that, "in general, cardholders have not expressed concern regarding this provision." 


In 2011 Aetna began offering the Flu Care card to large self-insured employers and groups. Meadows got one because he has a Medicare Advantage plan as a member of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. 


The perk to the card, says Aetna, is that it serves as a reminder to get the flu vaccine and helps expedite the paperwork process for the consumer. 


"For members who choose to get a flu shot at a pharmacy, this debit card eliminates any hassle for the member. They show the card and Aetna gets the claim for the flu shot," said Rohan Hutchings, a spokesman for Aetna. "It is a one-time-use card so the member doesn't have to pay money out of their wallet and then go through the process of submitting a claim for the 100 percent covered shot." 


The other option, Hutchings said, is for the member to pay the pharmacy upfront for the shot, then submit a claim to Aetna for reimbursement. At a doctor's office, the doctor would submit the claim for the flu shot to Aetna. 


The arbitration agreement, Hutchings noted, does not include Aetna or the participating pharmacies. 


The flu card "is a popular program that saw a 33 percent increase in usage by Medicare Advantage members last year," Hutchings said. 


The Flu Care card sent to Meadows and thousands of others across the state last year expired Feb. 15, but Aetna said it plans to continue the program for the next flu season because of its popularity. 


You have a choice: Agree to their terms or don't use card 


Tom Bedall, a managing attorney at the Roselawn-based nonprofit Pro Seniors Inc., said he sees "no nefarious purpose" in the arbitration clause attached to the Flu Care card. 


"Consumer arbitration agreements have been found legal, within certain parameters, by the Ohio Supreme Court and are in use in many different consumer agreements," Bedall said, adding that even nursing homes are increasingly using the clauses in their admission contracts for seniors. 


"There is a choice to agree or not to agree," said Bedall. 


But whether consumers understand enough about arbitration clauses to know what they're agreeing to is up for debate. 


"Consumers may open a new account or take on a new product without being aware of what the contract says or without fully understanding its implications," Cordray said. 


In a report published in December, the financial protection bureau found that while tens of millions of consumers are subject to arbitration clauses, on average, consumers filed just 300 disputes in the markets studied by the bureau each year between 2010 and 2012. 


The bureau is examining whether consumers are aware of the terms of arbitration clauses and whether the clauses influence consumers' decisions about which products to purchase. 


For now, the bottom line for consumers remains "look past the shiny marketing materials and always read the fine print," said Laurie Petrie of the Council on Aging of Southwestern Ohio. "We tell seniors all the time, 'If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.' "
Larry KehresMount Union Collge
Division III
web page counter
Vermont Teddy Bear Company