Traverse City Regional Chamber of Commerce Bi-Weekly Report, 12/13/10

Autism Insurance Mandate Dies In Senate

An all-out push from the House Majority Floor Leader and the future Lieutenant Governor wasn't enough to convince Senate Republicans to take a vote on legislation that would mandate health insurers cover autism-related expenses as part of their coverage.

But multiple sources indicate that several senators the pro-autism forces thought were in their corner came out against the legislation in caucus.

In the end, without a majority of Republican caucus members in favor of bringing the matter up for a vote, Senate Republican leadership opted against putting the measure on the voting board.

"This is a battle, not the war," Calley said. "We fully intend to continue on the education process on autism now and in the future," Calley said. "The exclusion is too arbitrary to exist forever. As the truth is exposed it will be harder and harder for the opposition."

Business groups had lined up against the measure on the basis that legislative-imposed insurance mandates add costs to consumers who already are having trouble paying for coverage in many cases.

Sen. Tom George (R-Kalamazoo), who held a hearing on the subject in a previous session in his Senate Health Policy Committee, said, "This is a serious condition for which we all have sympathy, but to pick it out among the basket of conditions that aren't covered or for which insurance is adequate is just unfair."

In theory, the idea is to include state benefits for live-in boyfriends and girlfriends, whether they are of the same sex of the employee or not.

Daniel McLellan, counsel for the CSC, pointed out what he saw as several flaws in the LOUs. There isn't a limit on the number of OEIs a person can have, and doesn't say that only unmarried people can have OEIs.

"The language I believe would have to be amended," said McLellan.

He said that many universities have models that take these limits into account. Bommorito said that local governments like Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Washtenaw and Ingham counties also use a similar system.

Bommorito said that the estimated cost is $2.2 million to just cover OEIs, and $5.7 million as it's written now, with dependents of OEIs covered.

Commissioner Andrew Abood expressed a reservation to pass it immediately, saying "I'm just struggling with the lack of clarity in these agreements."

Interim Commission Chair Tom Wardrop concurred.

"The way it's written, we're uncomfortable with it. It's not a true one plus one like the universities and municipalities have."

MIRS asked, "We need to rewrite that language?"

"That's my feeling," he said.

But Abood conceded that he's been a "sort of one-man bandwagon" in bringing this issue to the Commission for about a year and a half."

"Despite the tough economic times, it's the right thing to do. And that's what character is . . . even though the allure is to say we can't afford it, we can't do it."

Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) spoke against passing the LOUs, calling them an "11th hour attempt" to add an additional burden to the state at a time when it doesn't have much budget to play with.

He also said $5.7 million was too conservative an estimate, but drew a blank when Abood asked where he was getting higher numbers from.

"I have no studies, but I have common sense," said Jones.

Jones also said the state doesn't have the resource to police possible fraud within the system.

The CSC tabled the matter unanimously, and talked about having another meeting to pass an amended version of this in December, but didn't confirm a date.

If the CSC doesn't take action on the LOUs by January 1, the matter flops into Republican Rick Snyder's administration.

Bommarito said she didn't believe there would be an opportunity, since all OSEs would have to sign an affidavit under risk of criminal prosecution.

Bommarito added she would revisit the inclusion of dependents with the "bargaining unit" and "tighten up the language."

She also said this is not an attempt to go around the voters who approved Proposal 2 and she expects only 1 percent of the state work force to take advantage of these new benefits.

Rep. Dave Agema (R-Grandville) took a swing at today's action, saying that although the words "domestic partners" or "same-sex" are never used, it's clear what the current administration is trying to do.

"Colleges have been looking for an end-run around the law for years, and now the governor is helping them out," said Agema. "She is once again showing her arrogance as she is purposely disobeying the will of Michigan voters."

But administration Press Secretary Liz Boyd said those making that claim have no credibility. Proponents for Proposal 2 were on record numerous times saying the constitutional amendment defining marriage between one-man and one-woman wouldn't impact benefits.

Now that it's passed, they are changing their tune.

"It's a first step," said MSEA attorney Brandon Zuk. "It's not a final decision so we'll have to keep at it."

Zuk said it's expected that the state and the unions will both file for summary judgment with the hopes of a decision by January.

Wednesday's decision by Collette is consistent with a similar decision regarding a new 3 percent contribution public school employees are ordered to make under a new state law in order to shore up their retiree health care costs.

The Michigan Education Association (MEA) is the lead group on that lawsuit.

In court, The Lansing State Journal reported that special assistant state attorney general Larry BYRA said placing the money in a special trust could cause budgetary problems for the state, forcing the state to dip into other accounts to pay retiree health care costs. That could result in possible layoffs.

Phil STODDARD, the director of the Office of Retirement Services, however, did not exactly sound an alarm after the decision was released.

"The ruling was not unexpected and we anticipated the decision to place the contributions in an interest bearing account while the case is heard," Stoddard said. "We look forward to when the court issues a decision on the substantive issues shortly after the first of the year."

The 3 percent employee contribution is designed to save the state $82 million in costs in each of the Fiscal Years (FYs) 2011, 2012 and 2013.

William WERTHEIMER represented UAW 6000 at the hearing. Mary Ellen GUREWITZ represented SEIU Local 517-M and John BOBROWSKI represented AFSCME Council 25. Frank MONTICELLO was the assistant attorney general in charge of the case.

The unions saw it as another procedural victory for state government unions.

"This is a win," UAW Local 6000 lobbyist Ray Holman told MIRS moments after he received a text message that the 30th Circuit Court had ruled in the union's favor.

"We wanted that money set aside," he explained, because there were fears if the state spent the money and the unions won the court battle, there would be no money to give back.

"We are like the teachers," said the official from the UAW, who also got a court order to place their 3 percent health care co-pay into a protected fund, where neither the state nor unions can get their hands on it.

Left with his cell phone and thoughts of what might have been, Cherry appeared in his final statewide public TV broadcast and told the Off the Record panel it is "not in my nature to focus on regrets." So if he had any as he ends 35 years in this town, they will remain a secret.

A relaxed and jovial Cherry made a strong defense of Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM's performance in office saying, "The Governor didn't go out and bankrupt General Motors." Asked if the administration was a failure, he countered that she had balanced the budget eight years in a row and left the new governor with no deficit.

"I call that a success . . . She was a victim of bad breaks . . . She diversified the economy," he went on.

He did concede the administration did not conquer the structural deficit challenge, but he quickly added that those who criticize her for that "didn't meet that test when they were in charge." He did not name names.

Cherry said he believes it is time for the MDP to redefine itself to bring in more groups based on geography and "get more professions into the process." In so doing, he concluded that "some of the influence of labor would be diluted."

He chided House Speaker Andy DILLON (D-Redford Twp.) for not being a team player and for not including the Governor in the discussion of health care reform, which Cherry said Dillon crafted by himself.

"He was not helpful. He was not part of the administration. He had his own role" to play Cherry observed. He called Dillon a "bright" person who wanted to advance his own agenda.

Cherry also criticized President Barack OBAMA for "negotiating with himself" on the package of jobless benefits and tax cuts for the wealthy. Cherry, unlike the governor, concluded, "You don't surrender at the beginning" of the process.

As for his own failed bid to become governor, he said the problem was money. He reported the UAW made financial promises that were fulfilled, but others who pledged their support did not.

In the future, he pledged to return to Flint and work for a variety of groups to help the city recover from its economic challenges.

For more information about these stories and others on a daily basis, check out the services of Michigan Information and Research Service (MIRS) on the web at www.mirsnews.com