October 2005 postings from old site (long)
Molly confronts Bill Leibensperger and OEA Central on remarks published in 'Communique'
. . . and you cite 'exaggerations' but you can't give examples; please explain
From: Molly Janczyk
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:22 PM
To: Gary Allen and Bill Liebensperger
Subject: "Naysayers" says OEA; and an OEA Fairy Tale vs. FACTS and ques. for Bill L.
It continues with the: Name calling starts under section: **WHAT HAPPENED: I am sorry for the length but hope you find this informative.(( )) indicates my words inserted in places in the article.
The Nov. issue of the Central OEA/NEA 'Communique' has a lengthy article written by Bill Leibensperger. In spite of asking that the rhetoric stop so we can move forward on HC legislation, the editorial states:
"Sept. STRS board meeting was successful one for OEA due to quick and effective action. He goes on saying he will tell what happened, why it is important and make a plea for action on behalf of OEA members.
RESULTS THEY WANTED: He speaks of the positive outcome of the day. The STRS and HCA's: Member Educ. and Engagement Campaign and Proposal was adopted and endorsed afterwards by OEA Exec. Comm. members will be asked guidance and opinions on a change of law so a dedicated stream of revenue can be created to sustain a health care benefit for both current and future retirees. ((THAT is good)).
WHY OEA TESTIFIED: OEA has been a key leader in the HCA working in collaboration with STRS board members and staff for last couple of yrs. AT THIS TIME WHEN FINALLY READY to craft legislative proposal with the approval of memberships, THE FACE OF THE STRS BOARD CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. No longer is there and active majority of contributing members on the board and CONCERN THAT THE 3 NEW STATUTORY MEMBERS CREATED BY SB 133-'investment experts' appointed by the Gov., Pres. of House and Pres. of Senate and Speaker of the House-MIGHT HAVE A MORE NARROW INTEREST THAN THOSE BOARD MEMBERS ELECTED BY THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE SYSTEM LED TO SOME VERY EFFECTIVE POLITICAL ACTION IN SEPT. THAT I (BILL L.) HOPE YOU (OEA MEMBERS) WILL HELP US BUILD UPON IN COMING MONTHS."
((INSERT NOTE: by Molly.J.: REMEMBER, THESE INVESTMENT EXPERTS WERE APPOINTED DUE TO THE SPENDING OF OUR MONEY BY THE PREVIOUS 5 OEA ACTIVE BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN OR MOST LIKELY WILL BE INDICTED FOR THESE ETHIC VIOLATIONS FORCING THE NEW SB133 WHICH PLACES OVERSIGHT BY INVESTMENT EXPERTS ON THE BOARD AND THE ABILITY TO REMOVE VIOLATORS IN THE FUTURE. Most of the previous and some of the current board members haven't a clue about investments and have had to play catch up re: finances. CONNI RAMSER ASKS LOTS OF QUESTIONS TO HER CREDIT BUT ADMITS TO KNOWING LITTLE WHEN SHE JOINED THE BOARD AND JUST MONTHS AFTER SHE WAS SEATED, IT WAS BEEN SAID BY AT LEAST ONE OF HER CO-BOARD MEMBERS, THAT SHE DIDN'T BELONG ON THE BOARD AS SHE WAS LOST IN THE DISCUSSIONS.. That was probably the norm in yrs. past BUT now, MOST of the board members are very fluent in finances having served on boards and possessing a better understanding of such issues than Conni. Leone and Lazares and the investment experts also researched issues and know what questions to ask and what points to make for a much more knowledgeable and effective, efficient board. They hit the ground running vs. spending time and money being trained in areas past elected board members knew little or nothing about wasting a year more getting 'with it.' m.j.))
Back to the Bill's editorial:
The article goes on:
WHO SAID WHAT:
"Being made aware that STRS would be entertaining a motion that will shape the future of retiree HC benefits for our (OEA) members, 18 active and retired OEA members composed testimony that stressed the importance of the compact between the STRS and public school educators for HC and retirement benefits and public policy that protects it. ((A list of names follows of those who)) spoke "ELOQUENTLY EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR STRS'S CONTINUAL EFFORTS TOW COST CONTAINMENT AND MEMBER EDUC. AND ENTHUSIASM FOR SURVEYING MEMBERS AND EMPLOYERS. THEY ALSO addressed the importance of the 35 yr benefits and the peril of shifting to a defined contribution plan for HC. With the assistance of OEA and HCA, I (Bill L.) also testified and coordinated testimonies."
**WHAT HAPPENED:
"They made a huge impact. (The 18 speakers) STRS Board members and staff alike commented on the POWER of their professional, articulate and passionate testimony.
THE STARK CONTRAST BETWEEN THE OEA MEMBERS AND TOO MANY OF THE USUAL ((THAT WOULD BE US: CORE)) PARTICIPANTS IN THE PUBLIC INPUT portion of meeting who have launched personal insults, unreasonable demands and angry diatribes for the past couple of years was a vivid one. A positive, unintended consequence of this testimony by these professional educators was the huge morale boost it gave to a beleaguered STRS staff and board."
******
QUESTIONS FOR BILL L.:
1. Did we not have a chat about this? This rhetoric which is a fairy tale, hurts actives and retirees. By not giving them the facts, you continue to perpetuate untrue rumor and harm cooperation between all YOUR membership.
I addressed you about this type of talk and asked you to provide ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING SAID BY CORE OR LEONE AND LAZARES WAS UNTRUE OR NOT STEEPED IN FACT. YOU SAID, "THERE WERE EXAGGERATIONS IN LEONE'S REPORTS AS ALLEN." I asked you to GIVE ME ONE! You were unable to do so after repeatedly trying to say there were exaggerations. I said CORE wishes to ALWAYS retract any statement not correct and to tell me anything not true and that it was all substantiated BY INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS: KOSTYU of the Canton Repository, ((WHO WON AN AWARD FOR HIS INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH ON STRS)), OLHEMACHER of the Cleveland Plain Dealer who broke the story on 6/08/03 followed by subsequent articles, JEFF HIRSCH WHO REPORTED TO CH.12 CINCI., and many more. FACTS regarding the misspending were PROVIDED BY DAMON ASBURY, EXEC DIREC OF STRS, and DENNIS LEONE RECEIVED AN AWARD FOR HIS RESEARCH PAPER ON STRS.
((I told Bill that he was saying they were all lying if he continued his remarks. At that time, he simply said , Well , there were a lot of facts in the report and gave me NOTHING that was an exaggeration. I then said, again, that CORE was REACTIVE to OEA rhetoric and IF OEA STOPPED, GUESS WHAT? NO REACTION! He said he understood but could not control others but indicated he would try or that was my understanding. WELL: HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T TRY HARD AS HE CONTINUES TO INSULT CORE THOUGH DOES NOT NAME US. I continued that we were going to start addressing this issue by ASKING him directly at meetings to PRODUCE FACTS for his comments and that he needs to come prepared or stop this. So Bill,
2. QUES: WHICH FACT OR ITEM WAS EXAGGERATED IN ANY OF OUR (CORE) OR LEONE'S PUBLIC RESEARCH PAPER, FACTS IN THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER BASED ON IT FOR ALL TO ACCESS OR KOSTYU'S NUMEROUS ARTICLES ON THIS ISSUE? ((THIS IS TYPICALLY WHEN OEA BACKS OFF AND DISAPPEARS WITH NO RESPONSE)).
Bill's editorial continues with:
"Concern that a new STRS board might consider such destructive ideas ideas as repealing SB190 (which includes the enhanced 35 yr. rule and other gains for members) and moving away from the subsidized defined HC benefit for current and retired retirees WERE ALLAYED FOR THE TIME BEING. At the end of the day, everyone seemed to be on the same page moving forward as reflected in the board's unanimous vote and supportive comments from everyone in the audience -- INCLUDING PREVIOUS NAYSAYERS!"
FAIRYTALES, BILL! I was in the audience along with many of those you call 'naysayers.' You write as though this was some remarkable achievement when what happened was 18 folks spoke and most of us wondered WHY they weren't more informed of reality by now. of course, that happens when one does not seek all info from all sides and then proceed to decide issues for themselves vs. relying on one entity only for their spoonfed and one sided info.
3. QUES: WHO BESIDES RAMSER AND BROWN (who takes liberties as board chair that are out of line according to Damon, STRS EXEC DIREC) ON THE BOARD THOUGHT YOU BROUGHT ALL THIS MORALE BOOST TO THE BELEAGUERED BOARD?
-4 of the 5 active OEA beleaguered board members have been replaced and cannot return to the STRS board due to overspending language in SB 133. One and probably all 4 or 5 of the former and one current OEA active board members and one retiree board member who voted with them will be indicted for spending our money on themselves for perks and pleasures. (That would be naysaying, rt.?) -The 3 investment experts with what you call possible 'more narrow interests' don't seem to have your support so did they feel 'boosted' by OEA?
4. QUES: Who in the audience gave all this feedback except OEA members? I do remember Nancy Hamant, CORE, turning to you and welcoming actives and saying we'd be rt. beside you in the fight for HC where WE HAVE BEEN FOR OVER THE PAST 2 yrs. I heard many in the audience say: WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN FOR OVER 2 YRS WHILE WE'VE BEEN HERE FIGHTING FOR SPENDING REDUCTIONS, STAFF CUTBACKS, ELIM. CREDIT CARDS AND CARS, TRAVEL CUTBACKS FOR MOST EXPEN. AIRFARES AND HOTELS, BAR BILLS, DINNERS, DECORATIONS, ART AND BLDING, FITNESS CENTER AND LUNCHROOM SUBSIDIES ,CHILDCARE SUBSIDY ELIM. ALL OF WHICH ACTIVE AND RETIRED MEMBERS PAY FOR OUT OF EARNINGS OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR ACTIVE AND RETIRED EDUCATORS FOR OVER 2 YRS ON THESE ISSUES TO DEMAND OUR EARNINGS BE INVESTED AND SPENT WISELY VS ON PERSONAL PERKS.
5. QUES: WHERE IN ANY OF THIS, DO YOU FIND: "Unreasonable demands?"
Angry, sometimes, yes, at having our guardians of our money say 'it was theirs to spend as they wish'. Herb Dyer, former Exec. Direc., of STRS was fired for such a remark. Is it reasonable to be angry if your broker spent your earnings on investments on his own trips, cars, etc.? YES! THAT IS WHAT STRS DID!
As Dennis Leone said in the Oct. STRS board meeting, public speak session to an active who said someone was heard to ask "Where have they been?"
Leone asked to speak and I think board members will now be doing so in response to comments and questions addressed to them or to the board to which they qualified to answer:
Leone said: "I said that. I asked where they have been?" I am happy that the actives are here now but I wonder why they weren't here over the past 2+ yrs. when the going was tough to help with changes positive for all STRS membership: active and retired."
Also, he brought up the RUMOR that NEW board members wanted to change the 35 yr. rule and wondered where that came from as neither HE nor the board since his inception HAVE EVER DISCUSSED IT! Nor is he particularly interested in changing it.
DAMON ASBURY HAD INSIGHT ON THIS AND SAID: "I think it came from the JULY 2005 STRS statement THAT ALL AREAS AND POSSIBILITIES WOULD BE LOOKED AT INCLUDING THE 35 yr. rule. to look at cost saving measures."
IT DID NOT COME FROM LEONE YET UNFAIRLY HE IS BEING BLAMED!!!!!!!!!!!! (No surprise when it comes from OEA tactics.)
It has also come to my attention that suburban educators are hearing negative remarks still about Leone's research from possibly no other than Bill L.'s wife, Dawn.
6. QUES: BILL AND DAWN: AGAIN: WHAT SPECIFIC POINT(S) DO YOU HAVE VERIFIABLE PROOF ARE EXAGGERATED SINCE ALLFACTS WERE PROVIDED BY DAMON AND RESEARCHED BEFORE PRINTING BY SEVERAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS?
********
ACTIVES: WHEN YOU HEAR THESE COMMENTS: YOU NEED TO ASK THEM FOR SPECIFICS AND THEN FORW TO US OR THE REPORTERS OR DAMON ASBURY OF STRS FOR CLARIFICATION AS ALL FACTS GIVEN BY CORE AND LEONE ARE JUST THAT: VERIFIABLE FACTS!
The article continues:
SECTION: WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU:
Bill writes:
"......time for leaders and members from other parts of the state to come forward and help the new board understand these concerns really do represent everyone. Make plans to attend or send reps to future STRS board meetings to provide testimony ((love that word: implies their word is somehow steeped in truth, unfortunately, this article is not, in my opinion for reasons stated)) or presence or both. ((OEA HAS 4 or 5 show up in Oct.)). I (Bill ) will help you ((evidently he doesn't trust OEA actives to write their own speeches: kinda insulting, I think-more like use you as a mouthpiece)) with the logistics of your participation and development of 'testimony'. Please email me, (Bill) at: (_) to indicate your interest.
Then he lists the meeting dates and continues:
"Please make it a priority to ensure an OEA presence at these meetings. Let me know how I can be of assistance."
*************
CORE is very happy for this hopefully increased attendance at STRS BOARD MEETINGS:
As with the Oct. STRS BOARD MEETING, it gives actives a chance to address the board and NOW be answered ON THE SPOT regarding any concerns from those board members interested in responding to ques. and comments then and there. I know Leone and Lazares are willing to speak directly to you and this helps overcome false RUMORS and provide facts ALL ENTERED THEN IN THE MINUTES AND UNREFUTABLE for future misuse.
PLEASE ATTEND AND GET FACTS VS FAIRYTALES: HEAR ALL SIDES AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS ON WHO THE NAYSAYERS AND PROMOTERS OF MISINFORMATION REALLY ARE! CORE STANDS UP FOR ITS STATEMENTS AND WELCOMES ANY AND ALL DISCUSSIONS.
As Dr. Buser, investment appointee to the board, said to me: "WHY DO THESE ORGANIZATIONS DISLIKE CORE? CORE ASKS REASONABLE QUESTIONS AND JUST WANTS TO HELP! Don't they understand you are all working for the same thing?"
You'd think, huh? But they continue to badmouth us even though we work to pass you info and help inform all of the HCA plan for legislators and LEONE IS THE ONLY BOARD MEMBER TO ATTEND HCA HC DISCUSSION MEETINGS AS HE FEELS IT IS IMPORTANT TO SHOW HIS SUPPORT AND ANSWER QUESTIONS IF ASKED RE:THE PROPOSAL! HE HAS COMPLIMENTED EVERY PRESENTER HE SAW AND HAS ONLY POSITIVE COMMENTS FOR THESE MEETINGS HOPING TO SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SAVING YOUR FUTURE HC!
OEA CENTRAL: You continue to disappoint with negative rhetoric about persons who have fought for and secured reduced spending and guaranteed it stop so STRS can focus and ACT SOLELY on its membership per ORC: 3307.15, the law which states it must do so. You HARM RELATIONS BETWEEN GROUPS IN YOUR MEMBERSHIP WITH FALSE STATEMENTS. YOU are NOT working to coordinate all of your groups to combine efforts to work together. You thank me for trying and then turn and speak ill. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Only YOU, OEA CENTRAL, have to power for change but you repeatedly turn your back. We are true to our word and more and more (half your membership, I am told) wish for collaboration with CORE. Also, more and more actives are hearing the facts and you ONLY hurt yourselves as TRUTH RINGS CLEAR! CORE, Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, fights for ALL EDUCATORS WHO WILL RETIRE OR ARE RETIRED UNDER STRS.
Bill, OEA CENTRAL, I invite ANY dissent with ANY comment and WILL retract any item if not accurate PROVEN by you to be false.
Molly Janczyk
STRS Retiree who fought to build CEA and OEA since early 70's.
OEA Member as an Active
OEA-R Lifetime
ORTA Lifetime
FCRTA
CORE
David Brennan and Buckeye charter school history: more than you really wanted to know
Toledo Blade
Oct. 30, 2005
Schools and fund-raising
In the business world, CEOs look for every edge.
A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.
The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.
When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.
A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.
Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.
In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.
A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.
The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.
Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.
Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.
"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.
State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.
Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.
Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.
Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.
White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision. Now, the rest of the article, some of you educators might be politically offended, but it was written by the same authors!
John (Curry), a Proud CORE member
www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS24/510300346
Article published October 30, 2005
Ohio Bush donors richly rewarded
'Pioneers and Rangers' handed access to contracts, policymakers
By JAMES DREW and STEVE EDER
BLADE STAFF WRITERS
COLUMBUS - The Ohio business leaders and lobbyists who steered at least $4.1 million to President Bush's re-election campaign last year collected more than $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for their companies and clients, a Blade investigation shows.
The fund-raisers who helped deliver the battleground state - and ultimately the 2004 presidential election - also received choice appointments from state and federal officials. The posts included an ambassadorship to Germany and a seat on the Ohio State University board of trustees.
Others made millions from unbid contracts varying from supplying ball bearings to the military or office furniture for federal agencies.
As they raised millions to help re-elect George W. Bush in 2004, the 30 Bush "Pioneers" and "Rangers" from Ohio - who raised at least $100,000 and $200,000 respectively - also had access to policymakers from the Ohio Statehouse to the White House.
The fund-raisers included Tom Noe, a former Toledo-area rare-coin dealer who is facing multiple investigations into the state's failed $50 million investment in rare-coin funds. He was indicted Thursday on three felony charges that he laundered money into the President's re-election campaign.
Both Bush-Cheney and the campaign of Democrat John Kerry tapped "bundlers" who would find dozens of others - often business associates and other contacts - who would each contribute $2,000, the maximum allowed by federal law to a candidate in an election.
But in Ohio, where the election swung on fewer than 120,000 votes, Mr. Bush's 30 premier fund-raisers exceeded the Kerry campaign's take from the state by themselves.
"This fund-raising is just a pyramid scheme, except that it works," said Alex Knott, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington. "The Pioneers and Rangers are the networks of people - the friends of the friends of the friends - who put money into these coffers. They are given a tracking number so their donations can be given credit and there is only one reason for that - if that is going to be used as value later."
The three Ohio Pioneers and Rangers who agreed to speak with The Blade said ideology and a fondness for the President drove their giving. They also sketched a picture of behind-the-scenes campaign access few Bush supporters experienced.
One Ranger, insurance executive Doug Corn of Cincinnati, told The Blade he met with President Bush 16 times during the last two years. A Pioneer, Ron Beshear, described a late-night White House tour that included a stop at the Oval Office.
The newspaper's investigation also found:
The state of Ohio paid about $800 million to the companies and lobbying clients of Ohio's 30 Pioneers and Rangers during the last six years, an analysis of a state expenditure database shows. The money flowed from the state to the fund-raisers for a number of purposes, including charter school payments, development grants, and tax refunds.
Records showed that the federal government paid more than $447 million to the firms of the President's Ohio fund-raisers and their lobbying clients since Mr. Bush took office in 2001.
The revenues of some of the firms headed by Ohio Bush Pioneers and Rangers are determined partly by the amount of subsidies they get from Columbus and Washington and by the regulatory decisions made by government officials.
John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Friday that The Blade's findings are "part of a continuing pattern" of the Bush administration's giving of special access to fund-raisers.
The former U.S. senator from North Carolina said the culprits are the nation's flawed campaign finance system and the government officials who act in the interest of their "cronies."
Mr. Edwards said President Bush's Pioneers and Rangers system had a "significant effect" on Ohio and the outcome of last year's presidential race.
"George Bush and Dick Cheney had significant amounts of money raised by these Pioneers and Rangers in Ohio," Mr. Edwards said, adding, "huge amounts of money raised by them and others around the country were infused into Ohio."
"A significant amount of that money was raised by people who had particular interests. And it is obvious that some of them were awarded for what they did. Unfortunately, it's the voter and the taxpayer who suffers for that," he said.
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Aaron McLear, said there is no connection between campaign contributions and government payments to firms of big GOP fund-raisers.
"Our supporters ensure that we have the tools and resources necessary to get our message out and mobilize voters," he said. "They donate time and money because they believe in our values and support our candidates."
Mr. Corn, the insurance salesman for Northwestern Mutual Life who raised at least $200,000 for the President last year, had never made a campaign donation before last year's election, but said he was inspired by Mr. Bush's "out-front Christian values" on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
"I didn't want, nor did I expect, anything at all in return," Mr. Corn said. "My reward was that he was re-elected, and my reward was [newly appointed Chief Justice] John Roberts."
But assessing other Ohio presidential campaign fund-raisers, Mr. Corn added: "Positively, I think people got involved and they wanted something."
'Bundling' the cashBy the end of the 2004 race for political money, President Bush out-raised his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, $293 million to $252 million.
Some of the first Pioneers and Rangers helped Mr. Bush become governor of Texas in 1995.
By 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign had "perfected" its money-bundling machine, said Mr. Knott, the spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity.
The Bush-Cheney campaign recruited 548 Pioneers and Rangers nationwide, with 30 coming from Ohio and 18 from Michigan.
There also was a "Super Ranger" class, with eight Ohioans raising $300,000 for the Republican National Committee. The money helped fund campaigns across the country.
Health-care interestsIn the realm of health care, there are two Ohio firms with Bush fund-raisers as executives - HCR Manor Care Inc., a Toledo company that provides nursing home care, and Invacare, an Elyria health products manufacturer.
According to federal lobbying records, Invacare has spent more than $1.5 million since 1999 lobbying Washington officials on health-care issues. The company's CEO, Malachi Mixon, who was a Bush Ranger, and his employees and associates have contributed at least $1 million to political campaigns since 1989.
Mr. Mixon declined a request for an interview with The Blade, but it's clear from the company's statements that Invacare relies heavily on the support of the federal government.
In its Aug. 8, 2005, financial statement, Invacare wrote: "The Company is directly affected by government regulation and reimbursement policies in virtually every county in which it operates."
In its most recent quarterly filing, the company noted that "reimbursement uncertainties" have affected the performance of the company and there wouldn't be stability until Medicare and Medicaid implement plans for new codes and fees in 2006.
Invacare and its subsidiaries have received at least $3.1 million in contracts from the federal government since President Bush took office in 2001. Invacare largely provided hospital products for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
In Ohio, Invacare has received payments of at least $691,000 from the state of Ohio since 1999.
Most of the money Invacare received from the state came by way of development grants between July, 2004, and July, 2005.
The Ohio Department of Development awarded Invacare with about $446,000 in grants during that period.
Like Invacare, Manor Care Inc. has a strong interest in government health policy.
The company's chief operating officer, M. Keith Weikel, is a Bush Ranger. He, his employees, and associates have contributed more than $1.6 million to political campaigns since 1989.
Mr. Weikel declined to be interviewed for this article.
His company, which relies on Medicare and other government payments for 67 percent of its $3.36 billion in revenue last fiscal year, has legislative needs.Manor Care has lobbied heavily in favor of reducing jury awards in lawsuits, known on Capitol Hill as tort reform. A group Mr. Weikel helped form campaigned against Nancy Argenziano, a Republican lawmaker in Florida, in 2002 because she didn't support a proposed cap on punitive damages in jury awards against nursing homes in Florida. The law passed, and Ms. Argenziano won a state senate seat.
In a 2003 quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company cited "strong tort reform" measures enacted in Texas and other states as reasons for increased profits, adding: "There is still significant work to be done on this serious, industry-wide issue, especially in the state of Florida."
Manor Care spokesman Rick Rump said Manor Care is interested in tort reform and increasing Medicare payments, particularly in rolling back a planned cut on Jan. 1 that he said would equal a $17-a-day loss per patient at some of its facilities. But employees are not forced or encouraged to contribute to any politician, he said.
More than simple entitlement payments from Medicare, the company and another that Mr. Weikel helps oversee as a board member, Laboratory Corporation of America, enjoy various federal contracts, including with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies that total at least $65 million from January, 2001, to July, 2005.
The companies have been paid at least $1.6 million by state of Ohio agencies.
Timken's tie-insOn April 24, 2003, the President announced his economic agenda at the Timken Co.'s research facility in Canton, Ohio.
"The greatest strength of the American economy is found right here, right in this room, found in the pride and skill of the American work force," the President said. "Here at Timken, last year, productivity rose 10 percent, which means that America can compete with any nation in the world because we got the finest workers in the world."
W.R. "Tim" Timken, Jr., who inherited the manufacturer's chairmanship in 1975, hosted Ohio fund-raisers for the President.
A Ranger in 2004, he became the U.S. Ambassador to Germany last month.
Even though Mr. Bush praised Timken Co. as an example of a thriving American business, the company had relied on government handouts worth $259 million since 2001.
In a 2003 claim to the federal government, Timken requested subsidies because France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, and even Romania "dumped" ball bearings on the American market. Timken reported damage in excess of $63 billion.
The U.S. government paid Timken $109 million in 2003, almost three times the company's profits.
Timken was the primary recipient of a 2000 federal anti-dumping and subsidy law, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office.
The law was proposed by U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula (R., Navarre) in 1999. Timken is headquartered in his district.
Two weeks later, Ohio's Mike DeWine presented the legislation to the U.S. Senate. Mr. Regula and Mr. DeWine have received $30,700 and $46,750 respectively in contributions since 1989 from Timken employees and members of the Timken family.
Timken spokesman Jeff Dafler said he would not comment on the company's individual sources of revenue.
"The company's focus is and always has been on the markets themselves," he said.
Mr. Timken would not agree to an interview with The Blade.
Schools and fund-raisingIn the business world, CEOs look for every edge.
A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.
The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.
When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.
A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.
Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.
In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.
A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.
The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.
Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.
Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.
"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.
State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.
Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.
Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.
Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.
White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision.
Voting company's stake Wally O'Dell, the CEO of voting machine-maker Diebold Inc., has looked to the secretary of state's office in Columbus to set elections policy that would mean millions of dollars for his Canton, Ohio-based business.
In 2003, as the Bush-Cheney efforts accelerated, Mr. O'Dell, a Bush Pioneer, issued a fund-raising letter to Ohio Republicans declaring that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
The note sparked concern among Democrats, who charged it was an inappropriate action for a company vying to sell electronic voting machines to county governments.
Mr. O'Dell's letter was mailed one day before Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was expected to name Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell voting machines to Ohio counties. Diebold eventually received permission to sell its voting machines to Ohio counties.
Earlier this year, Matt Damschroder, the executive director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, acknowledged that last year he had accepted a $10,000 check for the county GOP from a Diebold consultant who was seeking county business. The transaction took place in Mr. Damschroder's county office and he was fined a month's pay for accepting the payment.
Diebold officials denied they had any knowledge of the contribution. Aside from the dozens of county contracts Diebold won to supply elections machines last year, the firm has collected more than $2.7 million from the state of Ohio since 1999.
In 2001 alone, the Ohio Department of Mental Health gave Diebold more than $1.3 million for technological equipment.
The company also has won more than $24.7 million in federal contracts since President Bush took office in 2001.
Mr. O'Dell also declined a request for an interview.
Rare-coin scandalIn April, shortly after The Blade wrote the first stories on Mr. Noe's rare-coin funds, Gov. Bob Taft was asked if his longtime contributor gained special access because of his support.
"I don't know," Mr. Taft said during an April 7 interview at The Blade's editorial department. "You tell me."
During a courthouse news conference after the governor's conviction on ethics charges in August, Mr. Taft told reporters that there is "no connection" between contributions and state contracts.
"Contracts are awarded based on merit, based on qualifications, based on experience and performance under our administration," Mr. Taft said. The governor's spokesman reiterated the governor's assertion last week.
Bob Bennett, the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, called any link between state contracts and campaign contributions "a stretch."
"Why is it wrong?" he said, of the campaign contributions. "What makes it wrong? You assume that these people are buying something, and they're not. They're buying good government. They're buying a philosophy of government."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean believes there's a problem with corruption that extends from Columbus to Washington.
"Americans don't like the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Columbus and Washington D.C.," Mr. Dean said last week, reacting to The Blade's findings. "The American people are looking for an alternative to the Republicans' pay-to-play approach to government."
Despite attempts at campaign-finance reform on the federal and state levels, evidence shows that those who give money to politicians tend to get access to public money and policymakers, said Taylor Lincoln, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
"Were the Pioneers and Rangers doing all of this work because they thought George W. Bush was the guy, or did they want a foot in the door if he was re-elected?'' Mr. Lincoln asked.
The answer matters to the state of democracy in the United States, said Mr. Knott of the Center for Public Integrity, "This is the American people's government. It is not the government of these individuals who coordinate campaign contributions," he said.
Oct. 30, 2005
Schools and fund-raising
In the business world, CEOs look for every edge.
A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.
The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.
When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.
A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.
Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.
In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.
A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.
The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.
Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.
Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.
"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.
State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.
Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.
Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.
Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.
White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision. Now, the rest of the article, some of you educators might be politically offended, but it was written by the same authors!
John (Curry), a Proud CORE member
www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS24/510300346
Article published October 30, 2005
Ohio Bush donors richly rewarded
'Pioneers and Rangers' handed access to contracts, policymakers
By JAMES DREW and STEVE EDER
BLADE STAFF WRITERS
COLUMBUS - The Ohio business leaders and lobbyists who steered at least $4.1 million to President Bush's re-election campaign last year collected more than $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for their companies and clients, a Blade investigation shows.
The fund-raisers who helped deliver the battleground state - and ultimately the 2004 presidential election - also received choice appointments from state and federal officials. The posts included an ambassadorship to Germany and a seat on the Ohio State University board of trustees.
Others made millions from unbid contracts varying from supplying ball bearings to the military or office furniture for federal agencies.
As they raised millions to help re-elect George W. Bush in 2004, the 30 Bush "Pioneers" and "Rangers" from Ohio - who raised at least $100,000 and $200,000 respectively - also had access to policymakers from the Ohio Statehouse to the White House.
The fund-raisers included Tom Noe, a former Toledo-area rare-coin dealer who is facing multiple investigations into the state's failed $50 million investment in rare-coin funds. He was indicted Thursday on three felony charges that he laundered money into the President's re-election campaign.
Both Bush-Cheney and the campaign of Democrat John Kerry tapped "bundlers" who would find dozens of others - often business associates and other contacts - who would each contribute $2,000, the maximum allowed by federal law to a candidate in an election.
But in Ohio, where the election swung on fewer than 120,000 votes, Mr. Bush's 30 premier fund-raisers exceeded the Kerry campaign's take from the state by themselves.
"This fund-raising is just a pyramid scheme, except that it works," said Alex Knott, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington. "The Pioneers and Rangers are the networks of people - the friends of the friends of the friends - who put money into these coffers. They are given a tracking number so their donations can be given credit and there is only one reason for that - if that is going to be used as value later."
The three Ohio Pioneers and Rangers who agreed to speak with The Blade said ideology and a fondness for the President drove their giving. They also sketched a picture of behind-the-scenes campaign access few Bush supporters experienced.
One Ranger, insurance executive Doug Corn of Cincinnati, told The Blade he met with President Bush 16 times during the last two years. A Pioneer, Ron Beshear, described a late-night White House tour that included a stop at the Oval Office.
The newspaper's investigation also found:
The state of Ohio paid about $800 million to the companies and lobbying clients of Ohio's 30 Pioneers and Rangers during the last six years, an analysis of a state expenditure database shows. The money flowed from the state to the fund-raisers for a number of purposes, including charter school payments, development grants, and tax refunds.
Records showed that the federal government paid more than $447 million to the firms of the President's Ohio fund-raisers and their lobbying clients since Mr. Bush took office in 2001.
The revenues of some of the firms headed by Ohio Bush Pioneers and Rangers are determined partly by the amount of subsidies they get from Columbus and Washington and by the regulatory decisions made by government officials.
John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Friday that The Blade's findings are "part of a continuing pattern" of the Bush administration's giving of special access to fund-raisers.
The former U.S. senator from North Carolina said the culprits are the nation's flawed campaign finance system and the government officials who act in the interest of their "cronies."
Mr. Edwards said President Bush's Pioneers and Rangers system had a "significant effect" on Ohio and the outcome of last year's presidential race.
"George Bush and Dick Cheney had significant amounts of money raised by these Pioneers and Rangers in Ohio," Mr. Edwards said, adding, "huge amounts of money raised by them and others around the country were infused into Ohio."
"A significant amount of that money was raised by people who had particular interests. And it is obvious that some of them were awarded for what they did. Unfortunately, it's the voter and the taxpayer who suffers for that," he said.
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Aaron McLear, said there is no connection between campaign contributions and government payments to firms of big GOP fund-raisers.
"Our supporters ensure that we have the tools and resources necessary to get our message out and mobilize voters," he said. "They donate time and money because they believe in our values and support our candidates."
Mr. Corn, the insurance salesman for Northwestern Mutual Life who raised at least $200,000 for the President last year, had never made a campaign donation before last year's election, but said he was inspired by Mr. Bush's "out-front Christian values" on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
"I didn't want, nor did I expect, anything at all in return," Mr. Corn said. "My reward was that he was re-elected, and my reward was [newly appointed Chief Justice] John Roberts."
But assessing other Ohio presidential campaign fund-raisers, Mr. Corn added: "Positively, I think people got involved and they wanted something."
'Bundling' the cashBy the end of the 2004 race for political money, President Bush out-raised his opponent, Democrat John Kerry, $293 million to $252 million.
Some of the first Pioneers and Rangers helped Mr. Bush become governor of Texas in 1995.
By 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign had "perfected" its money-bundling machine, said Mr. Knott, the spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity.
The Bush-Cheney campaign recruited 548 Pioneers and Rangers nationwide, with 30 coming from Ohio and 18 from Michigan.
There also was a "Super Ranger" class, with eight Ohioans raising $300,000 for the Republican National Committee. The money helped fund campaigns across the country.
Health-care interestsIn the realm of health care, there are two Ohio firms with Bush fund-raisers as executives - HCR Manor Care Inc., a Toledo company that provides nursing home care, and Invacare, an Elyria health products manufacturer.
According to federal lobbying records, Invacare has spent more than $1.5 million since 1999 lobbying Washington officials on health-care issues. The company's CEO, Malachi Mixon, who was a Bush Ranger, and his employees and associates have contributed at least $1 million to political campaigns since 1989.
Mr. Mixon declined a request for an interview with The Blade, but it's clear from the company's statements that Invacare relies heavily on the support of the federal government.
In its Aug. 8, 2005, financial statement, Invacare wrote: "The Company is directly affected by government regulation and reimbursement policies in virtually every county in which it operates."
In its most recent quarterly filing, the company noted that "reimbursement uncertainties" have affected the performance of the company and there wouldn't be stability until Medicare and Medicaid implement plans for new codes and fees in 2006.
Invacare and its subsidiaries have received at least $3.1 million in contracts from the federal government since President Bush took office in 2001. Invacare largely provided hospital products for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
In Ohio, Invacare has received payments of at least $691,000 from the state of Ohio since 1999.
Most of the money Invacare received from the state came by way of development grants between July, 2004, and July, 2005.
The Ohio Department of Development awarded Invacare with about $446,000 in grants during that period.
Like Invacare, Manor Care Inc. has a strong interest in government health policy.
The company's chief operating officer, M. Keith Weikel, is a Bush Ranger. He, his employees, and associates have contributed more than $1.6 million to political campaigns since 1989.
Mr. Weikel declined to be interviewed for this article.
His company, which relies on Medicare and other government payments for 67 percent of its $3.36 billion in revenue last fiscal year, has legislative needs.Manor Care has lobbied heavily in favor of reducing jury awards in lawsuits, known on Capitol Hill as tort reform. A group Mr. Weikel helped form campaigned against Nancy Argenziano, a Republican lawmaker in Florida, in 2002 because she didn't support a proposed cap on punitive damages in jury awards against nursing homes in Florida. The law passed, and Ms. Argenziano won a state senate seat.
In a 2003 quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company cited "strong tort reform" measures enacted in Texas and other states as reasons for increased profits, adding: "There is still significant work to be done on this serious, industry-wide issue, especially in the state of Florida."
Manor Care spokesman Rick Rump said Manor Care is interested in tort reform and increasing Medicare payments, particularly in rolling back a planned cut on Jan. 1 that he said would equal a $17-a-day loss per patient at some of its facilities. But employees are not forced or encouraged to contribute to any politician, he said.
More than simple entitlement payments from Medicare, the company and another that Mr. Weikel helps oversee as a board member, Laboratory Corporation of America, enjoy various federal contracts, including with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies that total at least $65 million from January, 2001, to July, 2005.
The companies have been paid at least $1.6 million by state of Ohio agencies.
Timken's tie-insOn April 24, 2003, the President announced his economic agenda at the Timken Co.'s research facility in Canton, Ohio.
"The greatest strength of the American economy is found right here, right in this room, found in the pride and skill of the American work force," the President said. "Here at Timken, last year, productivity rose 10 percent, which means that America can compete with any nation in the world because we got the finest workers in the world."
W.R. "Tim" Timken, Jr., who inherited the manufacturer's chairmanship in 1975, hosted Ohio fund-raisers for the President.
A Ranger in 2004, he became the U.S. Ambassador to Germany last month.
Even though Mr. Bush praised Timken Co. as an example of a thriving American business, the company had relied on government handouts worth $259 million since 2001.
In a 2003 claim to the federal government, Timken requested subsidies because France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, and even Romania "dumped" ball bearings on the American market. Timken reported damage in excess of $63 billion.
The U.S. government paid Timken $109 million in 2003, almost three times the company's profits.
Timken was the primary recipient of a 2000 federal anti-dumping and subsidy law, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office.
The law was proposed by U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula (R., Navarre) in 1999. Timken is headquartered in his district.
Two weeks later, Ohio's Mike DeWine presented the legislation to the U.S. Senate. Mr. Regula and Mr. DeWine have received $30,700 and $46,750 respectively in contributions since 1989 from Timken employees and members of the Timken family.
Timken spokesman Jeff Dafler said he would not comment on the company's individual sources of revenue.
"The company's focus is and always has been on the markets themselves," he said.
Mr. Timken would not agree to an interview with The Blade.
Schools and fund-raisingIn the business world, CEOs look for every edge.
A year after George Voinovich took office as governor of Ohio in 1991, he picked Akron industrialist David L. Brennan to chair a committee studying whether state tax dollars should be used to enable parents to send their children to private schools.
The study prompted the creation of a voucher program in Cleveland, and Mr. Brennan in 1995 opened three schools that received $2,250 per student.
When Mr. Voinovich ran for re-election in 1994, Mr. Brennan helped raise $1 million for Ohio Republicans, who gained control of the Ohio House that year, ending a Democratic majority that had stood for 22 years.
A year later, Mr. Brennan became chairman of the finance committee for the Ohio Republican Party, in charge of statewide fund-raising.
Mr. Brennan then pushed for charter schools - an alternative type of public school that receives taxpayer funds but is independent of the public-school system and largely free from state and local regulations. They also receive more per-pupil funding than voucher schools.
In 1997, state Rep. Sally Perz, a Toledo Republican who now is one of Mr. Brennan's lobbyists, succeeded in getting an amendment into the state budget bill to create the first charter schools in Ohio.
A year later, Mr. Brennan formed White Hat Management to manage charter schools. White Hat now operates 49 charter schools in seven states, including 13 Hope-Academies and 20 Life Skills Centers, including one in Toledo.
The Hope Academies are K-10 schools and the Life Skills Centers are designed primarily for high-school dropouts.
Based on enrollment, Mr. Brennan's charter schools have received $263 million in Ohio tax money since 2002.
Mr. Brennan, his wife, Ann, their daughter, Nancy, and the Brennan political action committee have contributed $3.4 million to Republican candidates in Ohio and on the federal level since 1989.
"The question is: Has Mr. Brennan purchased undue influence for private profit with these large contributions," said Tom Mooney, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers.
State legislators in 2002 changed the law to allow charter school sponsors to renew a charter for an indefinite period of time, despite saying in the late 1990s that charters would be up for renewal every five years to hold them accountable for results.
Mr. Brennan, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has said he contributes to political candidates to compete with the teachers' unions.
Since 1990, the political action committees of Ohio's teachers' unions have poured nearly $3.9 million into the coffers of candidates and the state's political parties. Although more than half of that amount was send to Democrats, the PACs did contribute heavily to Republicans as well, including more than $530,000 to GOP party funds.
Mr. Brennan now is expanding his school-choice enterprise. The federal No Child Life Behind law, the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, requires all public school districts with low test scores to offer tutoring.
White Hat Management has formed NCLB Tutors to make money from that provision.
Voting company's stake Wally O'Dell, the CEO of voting machine-maker Diebold Inc., has looked to the secretary of state's office in Columbus to set elections policy that would mean millions of dollars for his Canton, Ohio-based business.
In 2003, as the Bush-Cheney efforts accelerated, Mr. O'Dell, a Bush Pioneer, issued a fund-raising letter to Ohio Republicans declaring that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."
The note sparked concern among Democrats, who charged it was an inappropriate action for a company vying to sell electronic voting machines to county governments.
Mr. O'Dell's letter was mailed one day before Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was expected to name Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell voting machines to Ohio counties. Diebold eventually received permission to sell its voting machines to Ohio counties.
Earlier this year, Matt Damschroder, the executive director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, acknowledged that last year he had accepted a $10,000 check for the county GOP from a Diebold consultant who was seeking county business. The transaction took place in Mr. Damschroder's county office and he was fined a month's pay for accepting the payment.
Diebold officials denied they had any knowledge of the contribution. Aside from the dozens of county contracts Diebold won to supply elections machines last year, the firm has collected more than $2.7 million from the state of Ohio since 1999.
In 2001 alone, the Ohio Department of Mental Health gave Diebold more than $1.3 million for technological equipment.
The company also has won more than $24.7 million in federal contracts since President Bush took office in 2001.
Mr. O'Dell also declined a request for an interview.
Rare-coin scandalIn April, shortly after The Blade wrote the first stories on Mr. Noe's rare-coin funds, Gov. Bob Taft was asked if his longtime contributor gained special access because of his support.
"I don't know," Mr. Taft said during an April 7 interview at The Blade's editorial department. "You tell me."
During a courthouse news conference after the governor's conviction on ethics charges in August, Mr. Taft told reporters that there is "no connection" between contributions and state contracts.
"Contracts are awarded based on merit, based on qualifications, based on experience and performance under our administration," Mr. Taft said. The governor's spokesman reiterated the governor's assertion last week.
Bob Bennett, the chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, called any link between state contracts and campaign contributions "a stretch."
"Why is it wrong?" he said, of the campaign contributions. "What makes it wrong? You assume that these people are buying something, and they're not. They're buying good government. They're buying a philosophy of government."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean believes there's a problem with corruption that extends from Columbus to Washington.
"Americans don't like the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Columbus and Washington D.C.," Mr. Dean said last week, reacting to The Blade's findings. "The American people are looking for an alternative to the Republicans' pay-to-play approach to government."
Despite attempts at campaign-finance reform on the federal and state levels, evidence shows that those who give money to politicians tend to get access to public money and policymakers, said Taylor Lincoln, senior researcher for Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
"Were the Pioneers and Rangers doing all of this work because they thought George W. Bush was the guy, or did they want a foot in the door if he was re-elected?'' Mr. Lincoln asked.
The answer matters to the state of democracy in the United States, said Mr. Knott of the Center for Public Integrity, "This is the American people's government. It is not the government of these individuals who coordinate campaign contributions," he said.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Wal-Mart's health care problems: a mirror on the nation?
New York Times
October 29, 2005
Wal-Mart's Health Care Struggle Is Corporate America's, Too
By REED ABELSON
Back in the spring, amid relentless criticism that Wal-Mart Stores was failing to provide affordable health care to employees, executives at the company decided to take a detailed look at its benefits.
Wal-Mart knew its health costs were spiraling upward out of control, said M. Susan Chambers, the senior executive who led the initiative, but it was surprised to discover that its critics had a point.
Almost half of the children of employees were covered only by government social-service programs like Medicaid or had no insurance at all.
An internal memo to the Wal-Mart board by Ms. Chambers and her colleagues, which became public this week, candidly assessed this finding and proposed steps the company might take to address it - or at least blunt some of the criticisms it had been encountering.
While Ms. Chambers was quick to emphasize in an interview that Wal-Mart was not the only company with employees who use Medicaid, she said she was startled to find out just how reliant working people have become on government health programs. "It certainly did bring out for me the magnitude of the national problem," she said.
As the nation's largest employer, Wal-Mart cannot help but be entangled in the increasingly contentious debate over how best to provide health care to working Americans. Many of the company's 1.3 million employees are drawn from the most vulnerable part of the national labor pool: people who can find only low-paying jobs, who frequently cannot afford health coverage and who have no ability to absorb the kind of bank-breaking inflation in medical costs the country has experienced since the late 1990's.
For various social and economic reasons - including limited access to preventive medical care - low-income workers and their families often have the greatest health care needs, with the least ability to meet them. The Wal-Mart quandary involves a fundamental national issue: Who, if anyone, should provide care to the bulk of Americans.
"Whose responsibility is this?" said Carolyn Watts, a health professor at the University of Washington. "Is it the government's responsibility or the employer's?"
As health care costs continue to soar well above the general rate of inflation, Professor Watts says the United States can no longer rely on employers to provide widespread coverage and needs to grapple with that new reality. "It's a very different social contract than we have had," she said.
The controversy over Wal-Mart's benefits may mask what some experts see as an unraveling of the employer-based system of health coverage. "These are indications of the gaps in the health care system that are exposed by Wal-Mart," said Len Nichols, a health economist at the New America Foundation, an independent public policy group in Washington. "You can't blame Wal-Mart."
The Chambers memo offers an unusually frank and, at times, disturbing glimpse into Wal-Mart's struggle to achieve what are seemingly contradictory goals: to contain health care costs and to appease its critics. Even as Wal-Mart's health care bill, now $1.5 billion, has climbed 19 percent a year since 2002, it is insuring fewer than half of its employees.
While the memo outlines a series of fairly simple steps to expand coverage - at an additional cost of some $300 million a year by 2011 - it also recommends a wide-ranging set of initiatives to control costs, including one controversial proposal aimed at recruiting what the memo describes as "a healthier, more productive work force."
Perhaps the most unflattering element is the statistic that nearly half of the children of Wal-Mart employees are uninsured or on Medicaid, the federal and state insurance program for the poor.
For the nation's overall labor force, that portion is one-third, according to Wal-Mart.
But Wal-Mart is not alone in teetering on a tightrope between protecting profits and doing right by employees, a balancing act that is occurring throughout corporate America. Those facing similar situations include General Motors, which has long been seen as the gold standard for health benefits but is now scaling back. Another is Starbucks, which cited the cost of its widely admired health benefits last year when it raised prices. And while Wal-Mart's discounter rival, Costco Wholesale, has taken a strikingly more generous approach to health care, it has come at the cost of rebukes from Wall Street.
"The underlying problem is the problem of affordability of health care in the United States," said Helen Darling, the president of the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of companies. Wal-Mart's critics, who include some state officials, say companies like it are shirking their duty and asking the taxpayers to pay the cost of their workers' care.
In Maryland this year, legislators passed a bill aimed at large employers like Wal-Mart that would force them to insure more of their employees. After intense lobbying by Wal-Mart and other opponents, Maryland's governor vetoed the bill. A similar proposal was narrowly defeated by California voters last year.
What the Wal-Mart memo does make clear is that the company's health care costs are increasing at a faster rate than its revenues, and they threaten to engulf an increasing share of future profits.
Many companies are reducing their own exposure by shifting an increasing share of the costs onto employees, asking them to pay more in premiums or to foot more of the bill at every doctor visit.
But Wal-Mart - and many other companies with similar work forces - does not have that luxury.
Nearly 40 percent of its employees already spend an average of 16 percent or more of their pay on health care - a level about four times the national average.
The Wal-Mart work force reflects a growing fear of many employers that the people who work for them are increasingly at risk for health problems. Many of Wal-Mart's employees are obese, the company says, and a result is rapidly rising numbers of cases of diabetes or heart disease. The prevalence of these diseases among Wal-Mart employees is increasing much faster than the national average, it says.
"The low-income population generally is not as healthy and does not engage as much in preventive care," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. A risk that a company like Wal-Mart faces, especially when it competes with smaller retailers that offer no insurance at all, Ms. Rowland said, is attracting too many workers who want the job primarily for the health coverage.
Among the starkest - critics would say Darwinian - solutions the Wal-Mart memo explores is the idea of not hiring as many people who have health problems or risks. The memo suggests that the company could require all jobs to include some component of physical activity, like making cashiers gather shopping carts. It also recommends redesigning and expanding benefits to appeal to a different type of worker, someone more interested in buying a home, say, than in getting health insurance.
"These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart," the memo said. The company also says a push toward more part-time workers - many of whom would either not be eligible for, or could not afford, whatever new health plan Wal-Mart might devise - will also lead to fewer people's needing coverage.
Lawyers and consultants said the company could run afoul of laws that prevent companies from discriminating against older workers or those with health issues.
A federal jury this year found that Wal-Mart was guilty of discriminating against an employee with cerebral palsy by reassigning him to a job where he had to collect garbage and shopping carts.
The jury awarded him $7.5 million, although the amount was reduced to about $2.8 million, said the employee's lawyer, Douglas H. Wigdor. The company is currently operating under a consent decree by federal regulators because of similar behavior toward other employees, Mr. Wigdor said.
Ms. Chambers said the memo did not reflect any intention of discouraging people with medical problems from joining Wal-Mart but, rather, a concern about the lifestyle choices and health of its employees. She said the steps were meant to encourage people to be more active. "Does that mean we are not going to hire unhealthy people?" she said. "No."
The other initiatives represent a smattering of programs already embraced by other companies, like disease-management programs in which people with a specific illness are helped to take better care of themselves. Another step would be urging employees to go to doctors that provide good care at a reasonable cost.
Policy analysts say such measures offer no quick cure for the country's ills or anything that has a hint of real reform. One recommendation even harks back to the days of company doctors by suggesting that Wal-Mart consider expanding the customer health clinics available at a few of its stores to provide care for employees.
The company has already opened four of these customer clinics, which it said appeared to be a popular alternative for people who are uninsured and must pay out of pocket. Prices are clearly marked, and the company says the clinics are an affordable way for people to check out minor ailments like a sore throat or to have their blood sugar checked.
Most striking, perhaps, is that the many initiatives outlined by the memo would seem to accomplish so little financially - bringing down projected health costs from 2.3 percent of sales to something closer to 2 percent. Embracing even the most far-reaching suggestions, like recruiting healthier workers, might drive overall benefit costs to a level only a shade under 2 percent.
"As clever and strategic as it is," said Mr. Nichols, the economist, Wal-Mart's strategy "is not a solution to our long-term problem."
But Ms. Chambers said Wal-Mart realized that the current initiatives being discussed by corporate America only scratched the surface and that the company wanted to be part of any national dialogue about health care. "I feel," she said, "like we're dealing with symptoms - not causes."
Double dipping: how to line your pockets, block opportunities for others and screw the retirement system (STRS) all at the same time
Akron Beacon Journal
Sat, Oct. 29, 2005
Coventry has clever retirement plan
Superintendent takes a few days off so district can save thousands
By Katie Byard
Beacon Journal staff writer
Coventry schools Superintendent Gary Zoldesy plans to retire and then resume his job days later.
The move would allow him to collect his state pension benefits in addition to a salary.
The district would save at least $15,000 a year, as it no longer would pay Zoldesy's health insurance, said Treasurer Lee Ann Weisenmiller.
Also, the school board anticipates negotiating a lower salary for Zoldesy, who would work fewer days, board President Robert Wohlgamuth said.
Zoldesy's annual base pay is about $93,000.
He would join a growing number of public educators who are benefiting from a 2000 change in state law that allows them to retire, then return to their jobs and receive a pension and salary simultaneously.
Some have criticized the practice as ``double dipping'' and say it means fewer job and promotion opportunities for younger educators.
Some school districts, however, say they can benefit.
``It allows districts like us who are trying to save every penny. We can continue with the positive leadership we have and still save money,'' Weisenmiller said Friday.
Wohlgamuth said, ``School districts these days have to look for any way possible to save money.''
Zoldesy, 58, could not be reached for comment Friday.
The rehired retirees say they have paid into the State Teachers Retirement System and are entitled to the benefits.
State law calls for a school board to have a public discussion before re-employing the retiree.
Coventry will discuss the issue at 6 p.m. Nov. 22 at Coventry Junior High School, 3257 Cormany Road.
Zoldesy plans to retire Dec. 31 and return to his job Jan. 5.
He joined Coventry in 2003 as the overwhelming choice of a committee of district employees and parents who interviewed nine semifinalists for the superintendency. He previously was business manager for Warrensville Heights schools.
Friday, October 28, 2005
John Curry: Affordable health care at STRS? Some people think so!
Are they living in a dream world?
I just went to the mail box and pulled out my bound copy (thanks to Damon) of the September STRS Board meeting. Upon reading the condensed summaries of the public speakers presentation, I was amazed (again) to see that some people still feel STRS offers affordable health care coverage. I will include some of these summaries with the affordable health care part in italics as taken verbatum from the official minutes of the Sept. board meeting:
Ms.Darlene DePouw, of Groveport Madison Local Education Association, addressed the Board. Ms. DePouw said she believes the Board's Strategic Plan for Health Care is a well thought-out blueprint for containing costs, while maintaining access to high quality affordable care. She said she applauds the Board's effort to work with the Health Care Advocates and other Ohio retirement systems to find short-term solutions.
Ms. Maureen Reedy, a teacher in the Upper Arlington School District, addressed the Board. Ms. Reedy said affordable health care at retirement has been the No. 1 concern of active teachers and to continue to work to provide affordable health care and consider rolling-back the enhanced pension benefit at 35 years of service provided by S.B. 190.
Mr. Len Codispoti, representing OEA-R, addressed the Board. Mr. Codispoti commended the Board for its efforts to provide affordable health care and suggested: exploration of procurement options that provide the greatest hospital and physician discounts; use of generic drugs and evidence-based formulas that improve treatment, yet reduce costs; and encouraging active and retired educators to take greater involvement in maintaining their personal health and, at the same time, become wise consumers of health care services.
Mr. Tim Meyers, a teacher at Elida Middle School, addressed the Board. Mr. Meyers supports long-term continuation of affordable health care for current and future educator retirees. He said he is concerned about potential changes to S.B. 190 and a recent article regarding implementation of a defined contribution for future retirees to cover health care costs. (Mr. Myers is on the OEA Executive Council- these minutes didn't reflect this information-John)
Mr. David Bowen, representing himself and OEA-R, addressed the Board. Mr. Bowen said he appreciates the time and attention the Board has given the problem of health care funding and said he trusts it will continue to work toward a plan that will sustain adequate long-term affordable health care for current and future retirees. He also commended the board for its cooperation with the Health Care Advocates.
Ms. Phoebe Glenn, president of the Plain Local Education Association/New Albany School District, addressed the Board. Ms. voiced her support for the 35-year benefit and the security of affordable health care for current and future educator retirees.
In summation, 5 out of 6 speakers listed above have an OEA connection and apparently are under the false impression that STRS retirees currently HAVE affordable health care. Maybe they think $676 per month for a 30 year retiree and his/her spouse is affordable. Are they really aware of that FACT or are they living in a dream world?
John, a Proud CORE member
10/28/05
STRS Health Care discussion meetings currently being held around the state
For information on these meetings, including sign-up information, click on October 2005 under "Archives" (right-hand side of this blog page) and look in the October 14 postings. You may also go to the STRS website: www.strsoh.org
ALL STRS MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND, ESPECIALLY ACTIVES!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Why increased contributions are imperative to save health care for all: Molly Janczyk
10/27/05
It has come to my attention that some educators hearing of the proposed plan for increasing active contributions to a fund dedicated for health care were DISTRAUGHT upon hearing that they would pay an add'tl $8 per paycheck (based on a $40,000 salary) even though they will receive a 3% - 4% salary increase based on their current salary. $8 dollars per ck would be the first year deduction. Each year the actives would go up .5% for 5 years to total 2.5% ultimately which = $40 missed each check total after 5 yrs. BUT each year they would also receive 3-4% raises based on each year's current salary so they will be earning approx. $500 hundred more by then and realizing $460 after the health care deduction.
Retirees never earn COLAS based on each year's pension but only on their first year of retirement. So, we are always losing more per year on a downhill spiral due to health costs increasing and inflation. We planned and did as we were told to provide for our retirements but no one told us in advance we'd face up to 800% increased in 3 years until AFTER WE RETIRED. We had our retirements robbed and paying these untenable and catastrophic costs have kept health care alive for future retirees with educator organizations stating such with written comments like 'retirees have been unfairly burdened.'
It is only fair that all educators help provide for their future health care and we only WISH someone had asked us to pay an addt'l $8 per ck vs. $600-800 per ck being taken without prior notice.
The health care fund will be used up at this rate as retirees cannot afford to maintain it. As actives we paid for our own health care and paid into the retiree fund for those retired just as anyone on Soc. Sec. does. BUT, the next generation pays for you.
Without the increased contributions of the first year of $8 up to $40 at the end of 5 years per ck THERE WILL BE NO HEALTH CARE FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF RETIREES! Remember, actives still will average out at $500 raises over 5 years to cushion the top deduction at 5 years of $40.
Current retirees cannot afford their own healthcare at rates far beyond their capability of paying. Some retirees actually owe STRS after healthcare premiums are deducted. Current retirees were told we had healthcare second to none and as late as 2001, consultants were telling us we'd never have to worry about healthcare. Retirement literature told us NOT to purchase additional insurance which was not needed and would only erode our pension checks.
Then nearly overnight , our premiums soared and our deductibles and out of pocket maximums increased with our coinsurance going from being paid at 100% to only 80% making us pay for the 20% of medical costs. RX's went from $5 and $10 up to $30-150 for some RX's now down to maximum RX costs at $20-100 each for 90 day supply. The average retiree household has 20 RX's times those numbers. Add that to $500 each deductibles, $501 premium for spouse monthly and $148 beneficiary monthly, few hundred each month for RX's. 2006 premiums are up from current ones shown in presentation. They are only up 3% for 2006 to see how this year goes with this presentation and the new Medicare Part D RX program.
If you retire, you will pay: 2006: NON MEDICARE: Monthly premiums: $148 (self) $501 (spouse) $501 (dependents such as children if you still have them at home up to 22 yrs.)
RX's: $20, 50 or 100 each for 90 day supply times number per household and divided by 3 to get a monthly figure. (up to $1500 each person per yr.)
Out of pockets: $1500 medical (20% you pay up to $1500 each per yr.)
Deductibles: $500 each person in family including children.
IF THIS PLAN FOR INCREASED CONTRIBUTIONS DOES NOT GET IMPLEMENTED: 2007 will most likely bring:
Retirees paying for CATASTROPHIC coverage offered ONLY with :
Deductibles of: $1500 each person in family BEFORE ANY INSURANCE kicks in to help with costs.
Out of pockets :
$2500: each person pays this to meet their 20% up to $2500 each ($5000 max per family)
RX's:
STRS pays up to a certain amount and then enrollee pays 100% of their RX's after that amount. This year's figure is STRS pays the first $3100. This area cost would depend on how healthy you remain and how many RX's you have to take that are not generic (generic: $20) or may be off formulary. STRS decides which drugs on are their list as formulary: brand name ($50 for 90 days) and which brand drugs they decide are not to be on their list (formulary) and so cost $100 each for 90 days. Some drugs which cannot be 90 day supplies and must be purchased retail monthly would be $10 , $25 and $50 respectively.
Please look this all over and decide how distraught to be over $8 per ck vs. paying these amounts upon retirement.
You cannot save enough to cover your retirement health care cost and also be retired. Increased contributions is the ONLY way to dedicate a stream of money for the health care fund and the only possibility that actives will have healthcare in their retirements as FUTURE actives will pay into the fund for YOU!
To have healthcare we must all help pay for it incrementally. This should have been done 15 yrs ago and had we been told of the dangers, we would have volunteered to actually have a retirement with benefits now! As it is, nearly all able, have returned to work to pay for our healthcare for ourselves and our spouses who pay 100% of the premiums and have access only to healthcare by doing so. Without this legislation, that may be all that any of you can expec: Catastrophic only coverage with huge deductibles, access only premiums with every person in family paying 100% of the health premiums plus other costs listed.
A FEW DOLLARS NOW OR UNAFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE LATER!
Professors: tuitions continue to rise and so you can be reasonably assured your salaries will as well.
RH Jones: Actives' projected raises exceed retirees' COLAs; compounding needed now
The BEACON, today10/27/05, front page of the Business Section D, mentions: "Most workers can expect a 3.5% raise next year -- same as this year, according to recent employer surveys." (END QUOTE)
The STRS retired teacher members cannot possibly expect to stay up with the increasing cost of living with a 3% simple COLA. It is hard to believe that taxpayers, school boards and active educators would not want a Compounded COLA for present & future retired educators.
RHJones
Columbus Dispatch editorial: teachers not exempt from rising costs of health care
Time to face facts
Everyone has to pay part of health-care tab; teachers are not exempt
Columbus Dispatch
Monday, October 24, 2005
The Ohio School Boards Association says it might be ready to "start a war" if teachers and school districts are asked to pay a bigger share of retired teachers’ healthcare costs, but this is a war that can’t be won.
A move by the State Teachers Retirement System to seek a law allowing the system to raise members’ and employers’ contributions is a reasonable response to a problem that nearly everyone faces.
Schools and teachers cannot be held exempt from the rising cost of health care. Employers across the board face double-digit jumps in medical bills each year. If these expenses aren’t shared, they threaten to put many employers out of business and to bankrupt pension funds.
For Americans to continue enjoying the world’s best health care, everyone will have to pay more.
Most private-sector employees have seen their share of premiums and copays rise substantially in recent years.
Even the United Auto Workers, long the poster child for excessive benefit packages, agreed recently to a new pact with General Motors, under which retirees will pay up to $752 more per year toward their health care. The agreement could help stave off bankruptcy by cutting GM’s medical bills by $15 billion over seven years.
Government agencies, with taxpayers’ dollars at their disposal, have been slower to act. The resulting budget deficits are the predictable result.
Workers at Franklin County Children Services struck over the issue in the spring. The eventual contract was the first in county government to require any health-care payments from employees, but the agreed contribution for 2006 of $35 to $50 per month per employee is woefully inadequate.
A key issue holding up a new contract between the Central Ohio Transit Authority and Transit Workers Union Local 208 is how much workers should pay toward health-care coverage. To date, they have paid nothing.
A large part of the crippling deficit faced by Columbus Public Schools is the result of a $19 million overrun in the school district’s self-insurance fund for medical coverage.
By seeking a higher contribution from teachers and their employers, the State Teachers Retirement System is attempting to avoid such a crisis. The Ohio Supreme Court in May let stand a lower-court ruling that said the School Employees Retirement System has the right to charge retirees more for health insurance in response to rising costs.
Teachers and school boards understandably don’t want to pay more, but they should bear in mind that the system isn’t required to offer any healthcare coverage to retirees. This benefit began in an era when medical expenses were lower and the pension fund’s earnings easily could pay them, but that era is gone. The members’ insistence on a broad plan with minimal contributions could result in no coverage at all.
As the American people, and not just their employers, pay ever-accelerating medical costs, Congress and the president eventually will feel compelled to join most nations of the developed world and create a national healthcare program. It likely will be a no-frills plan, and those who want more will have to pay for it.
Until that time, employers need to stay in business and pension plans, including the State Teachers Retirement System, have a responsibility to remain solvent. So everyone, teachers included, will have to pay more for health care.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
A strong case for a legislative increase in employer contribution to STRS: RH Jones
To all fellow taxpayers:
The OSBA and the OH legislature needs to realize that charter schools are a double unsuccessful misadventure. First, having both public and charter schools systems has been a double failure for the OSBA -- the resulting higher costs have strapped OH taxpaying families. The drain of tax dollars into charter schools has been a statistically proven failure. Second, as a consequence, the public schools have suffered as the professionally active and retired teachers have had to absorb and cope with diminishing school system budgets. Therefore, since public school district budgets mostly must go to employ professional educators; and, as trained educators seek employment elsewhere, the quality of K-12 education in OH has been deficient. A sound retirement system that offers HC/Rx, and a compounded cost of living, is undeniably part of a strong attraction to the education profession.
In moving the state's economy forward, the OSBA and the legislature should carefully consider increasing the 14% employer contribution to the STRS. A constantly shorted public education budget cannot get our state back where it should be. It has been proven that an educated population is a stimulus to the economy of the state.
Granted the state's economy is not what it should be, but we the taxpayers must "bite bullet" and do what is necessary for the public school educators of our children, our future.
RHJones, a taxpayer and a retired OH teacher
10/25/05
Lost in the Medicare maze: a Phi Beta Kappa scholar tries to figure out Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug Improvement?)
Lost in the Medicare maze
By Gilbert Cranberg
USA Today
10/26/05
My wife has a master's degree and worked for 50 years as a health care professional. I have a master of arts, plus a Phi Beta Kappa key.
For more than a half-century, I delved into, and commented on, complex public policy issues. We have ready access to advice from our children: two physicians, a lawyer and an insurance man.
Nevertheless, my wife and I are baffled by the incomprehensible turn Medicare has taken with passage of the Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.
Acquaintances tell us they are equally at sea -- and drowning in sales pitches that began Oct. 1. Enrollees can begin signing up Nov. 15, though coverage won't start until January. In Iowa, where seniors are as ubiquitous as corn -- the state is No. 2 in elderly 85 and older and fifth in persons 65 and older --The Des Moines Register recently called for a moratorium on implementing the law, saying it is "massively expensive ... complex, confusing and could use a lot of fixing."
Our dose of reality
Hell hath no fury like seniors riled. And they will be furious once the full implications of what has been done to Medicare sink in.
My wife and I had a taste recently when we sought help from Iowa's Senior Health Insurance Information Program. The advice, from a retired insurance executive: The new prescription drug program is not a good deal, but we should sign up for it anyway because the 1% per person penalty per month for delay would force us -- if we changed our minds and enrolled after a year -- to pay 24% (12% per person) more each month for the rest of our lives. In other words, a program deemed not in our interests at the outset would get progressively worse.
As part of the law's design to privatize Medicare, enrollment in the prescription drug program can only be through private insurers that contract with the federal government. So seniors have to puzzle out multiple plans, each with its own charges, coverage and formulary to determine which, if any, is advantageous.
The prescription drug program is simplicity itself compared with what else awaits seniors. The big push to privatize lies in the Medicare Advantage component of the law, wherein the government lavishes tens of billions of dollars on private insurers to lure seniors from traditional Medicare to private coverage. In Medicare Advantage, seniors confront a maze of competing private plans and a whole new world of co-pays, deductibles and rules for physician choice.
My state insurance department adviser urged me to shun Medicare Advantage in favor of traditional Medicare. His advice accords with what The Register recently told its readers when it called the effort to lure seniors from traditional Medicare bad for beneficiaries, bad for taxpayers and bad for the country.
Beware of sticker shock
How bad hasn't even begun to sink in. Seniors will be hit, beginning Jan. 1, with a monthly Medicare premium increase of $10.30, to $88.50. The largest chunk of that increase, more than 13%, is accounted for by payments for Medicare Advantage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predict that the prescription drug benefit will save seniors "many hundreds of dollars" and Medicare Advantage, "on average," will save beneficiaries about $100 a month. That agency, however, is an arm of the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services, which is marketing Medicare Advantage.
Traditional Medicare has been popular, even revered. A poll in 2003 by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation found about 80% of seniors 65 or older viewed it favorably. That was before the privatizers went to work and made it virtually impenetrable.
And when it dawns on seniors that they are actually paying to undermine the program they so admired, look for fireworks.
Gilbert Cranberg is former editor of The Des Moines Register's editorial page
Columbus Dispatch: OSBA vs. retirees (Oct. 19 column)
Fight brewing over health-care costs
More money may be sought for retired teachers’ coverage
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Barnet D . Wolf
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio will face fierce opposition from school boards if it seeks legislation that would force school boards and teachers to pay more money for retiree health care.
"We will go public and start a war no one wants to fight," vowed John M. Brandt, executive director of the Ohio School Boards Association.
STRS and an affiliated group have scheduled meetings for teachers and other active members in 13 cities through Nov. 17 to explain a proposal for a "possible legislative initiative" that increases member and employer contributions.
The plan being discussed by STRS would raise employer and member maximum contribution levels by 0.5 percent each year for five years, eventually capping the support at 16.5 percent for employers and 12.5 percent for members.
Active members now pay 10 percent of their salary to STRS, while their employers — school boards, colleges and others — contribute 14 percent.
Those amounts are the maximum levels permitted under law, which went into effect nearly three decades ago.
Brandt called the proposed increases "shocking" and unneeded.
STRS is the state’s second-largest public-employee retirement system with $59 billion in assets, 213,000 active members and 115,000 retirees. It would move ahead with an effort to increase the legal contribution limits "only if we have overwhelming support," spokeswoman Laura Ecklar said.
The matter of retiree healthcare costs has loomed over discussions about Ohio’s large public-employee pension funds for several years.
Most of the retirement systems are at their maximum contribution levels. One exception is the state’s largest fund, the $67 billion Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, but even it will raise contribution levels in phases, starting next year, that will put the fund at its cap in 2008.
By law, the systems must pay for pension obligations first, because they are guaranteed by the state. Any money remaining can go for health benefits.
When the stock market slumped from 2000 to 2002, the systems had fewer dollars to underwrite health insurance. At the same time, health-care costs have increased by more than 10 percent per year. Retirees were left to pay significantly more for health-care coverage.
But they’re not alone.
Private-sector employers and employees also have seen health-care costs skyrocket, and costs are expected to rise 8 percent next year, according to a survey by Towers Perrin, a professional-services firm.
The health-care-coverage bill for companies and their workers is expected to average $8,424 next year. Employees will pay an average $155 per person more next year. The employers’ tab will rise $442.
Towers Perrin said workers in the private sector are paying 64 percent more in health-care costs now than five years ago; employers are paying 78 percent more.
The General Assembly could face some tough decisions about the future of STRS and the state’s other retirement systems, which will be watching the pension fund’s initiative.
Teachers’ meetings are slated to start Tuesday in Athens, followed the next day with one in Columbus. The final session is Nov. 17 in Cleveland.
The meetings are being promoted by STRS and the Health Care Advocates for STRS, which includes the Ohio Education Association, the Ohio Federation of Teachers, Ohio Retired Teachers Association and American Association of University Professors.
Ecklar said the meetings also were set up to inform active members about the health-care costs they’re likely to face when they retire.
"A lot of our teachers are not paying much for the health-care coverage they receive, and our research shows they don’t have much knowledge about what they are going to pay" at retirement, she said.
Below: text version of graphic (chart) accompanying Dispatch article of 10/19/05, “Fight brewing over health-care costs; More money may be sought for retired teachers’ coverage”
[Note: Since the graphic would not publish in my blog, I am resorting to this method of conveying the information shown in it. KB]
Topping out
A number of Ohio’s public-employee retirement systems have reached their maximum contributions levels under state law.
Below are listed the five state retirement systems. Across from each are four columns. The first two columns are Employee and Employer CURRENT contributions; the last two columns indicate Employee and Employer MAXIMUM contributions. The percentages are listed in this order.
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System1*: 8.5%; 13.3%; 10.0%; 14.0%
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio: 10.0%; 14.0%; 10.0%; 14.0%
School Employees Retirement System2: 10.0%; 14.0%; 10.0%; 14.0%
Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund3: 10.0%; 19.5%; 10.0%; 19.5%
Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System: 10.0%; 25.5%; 10.0%; 30.0%
*Contribution increases will be phased in to reach maximum level in 2008
1State government rates. There are higher employer-contribution levels and maximum contribution levels for local government and law-enforcement employers
2Does not include employer surcharge to members earning below a minimum compensation amount to fund health-care benefits
3Police employers. Firefighter employers pay 24 percent. The rates are set by statutes.
Source: Ohio Retirement Study Council
Sunday, October 23, 2005
John Curry to Jim Petro: Will you heed your obligation to protect our funds?
Mr Petro,
I will begin this open and brief letter to you by stating that I am a benefits recipient of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and have dedicated 30 years to teaching Ohio's youth in an Ohio public school system. I wish to ask you what your office will do concerning the 1.75 million dollars that a Franklin Co. Court judge (Guy L. Reece II) has recently ruled belongs to the non-investments staff at Ohio STRS. This is 1.75 million dollars in bonuses that you requested your representative on the STRS Board to vote against (when you were an STRS Board member) when this issue was voted on by the STRS board. Since then, a class action law suit has been filed by several of the non-investment staff of the STRS against the STRS. As a result, the Franklin Co. judge ruled that this money is to go to the plaintiffs. Your office is obligated to fight for the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio to protect this money. Will you?
I'll put this into political perspective; you have put your hat into the ring to run for the Governor of the State of Ohio. There are over 100,000 STRS retirees. There are over 400,000 active teachers and non-actives who still have monies invested with STRS. These 500,000 people have spouses, families, and friends. They also will be watching to see how this is addressed or not addressed by your office. Will you heed your obligation to protect these 1.75 million dollars from a frivolous lawsuit based on bonuses that may have been promised or implied to the non-investments staff (all "at-will" employees - not contractual employees) during a time when STRS was losing billions of dollars in investments and retirees' health care premiums were skyrocketing?
Thank you, John Curry - a Proud CORE member (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators)
10/22/05
Curry and Tron: What is Caremark's "dirty little secret"?
From John Curry
10/23/05
Duane, I have a hunch ALSO that Caremark saw to it that in their contract with STRS -- there is a "dirty little secret" written into this contract that stipulates Caremark will be empowered to determine what information about the contract will be released to the public AND WHAT INFORMATION WON'T BE. Heck, I'll bet you a lunch in St. Paris that this is how our contract reads! John
From Duane Tron
October 23, 2005
Subject: Re: Caremark, a "Worsty" award, and lack of transparency to taxpayers
My take based on law is as follows: The law regarding PUBLIC disclosure for the care, use, expenditure,and investment of PUBLIC funds should take precedent over any such agreement! This should render any such agreement null and void because it violates the ORC and Federal Law. In other words it IS against the law to agree to any such deal. The STRS HC negotiating component is in violation of LAW, as well as CareMark. This is the exact reason such laws exist and that is because of the mess they have uncovered in Illinois. The only time the law can be side stepped is when it involves a matter of National Security. This means when it threatens the security and safety of the people of the United States. These types of agreements don't involve national security!!
Our funds are public money subject to public scrutiny! As usual we have another court ruling in Ohio where the judge doesn't know the law and obviously doesn't know his you know what from a hole in the ground. This is another one of those situations where we have Ohio judges making law and legislating from the bench! We need to challenge this and we need to challenge it now! Trade secrets my you know what??!!! This is simply a cover for possible corruption!
We need to look for a law firm that has taken on PBM's and contact them ASAP. We should ask them to take it on contingency and have the illustrious Judge Reece order them to reimburse our attorney fees and expenses like he has done for the non-investment staff at STRS. What's good for them should be good for Ohio's outstanding retired teachers who have devoted our lives to teaching young people for substandard pay and in substandard working conditions. Do you think???!! We have to really start pushing the envelope with these people. Up until now they have just been patronizing us. They throw us a crumb here and a crumb there to keep us at bay and to-date it's been working. My take for what it's worth!
From John Curry
Sunday, October 23, 2005
This is the same "stonewall" CORE member Nancy Hamant met with when the Warren Co. Retired Teachers Assn. took STRS to court to see their contract between Caremark (a pharmacy benefits manager of our Rx program) and the Ohio STRS. The suit was "slapped down" due to a sweetheart clause written into the law to protect this information under the guise of this information being a "TRADE SECRET!" The PBM's win this in every instance and the public be damned- even on public contracts such as the STRS/Caremark contract and the the good people of Illinois. John, a Proud CORE member
From pantagraph.com ( a central Illinois news website)
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Greenberg: Being awarded a 'Worsty' is not a good thing
A little more than a week ago, we found out The Pantagraph played a role in helping some government officials win a new -- and dubious -- honor.
The Illinois Press Association announced the first "Worsty" awards -- the top 10 Opening Meetings Act violations and top 10 Freedom of Information Act violations.
The purpose of the annual awards is to stop granting them because we eventually have no violations.
We've got a long way to go.
"Despite increased vigilance by our organization, the attorney general's office, and other watchdog groups, the abuses of these two access laws continue to escalate. These new 'awards' will identify the worst offenders each year. We hope that this will help to curtail future abuses," said Larry Green, president/publisher of Pioneer Press newspapers and chairman of IPA's government relations committee.
Pantagraph Publisher Linda Lindus, who serves on the government relations committee, said, "The 'Worsties' are a sad commentary on the misunderstanding of the public's business by public bodies or officials."
Chris Doyle, publisher of one of our sister papers, the Daily Chronicle in DeKalb, has been one of those coordinating the "Worsties."
Doyle announced the awards Oct. 14 at IPA's annual convention in Springfield. "We will announce only the top 10 violators in each category, but there are hundreds of examples from which to choose throughout the state that could be considered. The ... problem continues to spiral out of control," Doyle said.
The two instances we reported on were in the Freedom of Information Act category.
The Pantagraph, three other papers and The Associated Press all reported earlier this year about a state government contract with a company that made it next to impossible for the public to find out how our money is being spent.
At the "Worsties" presentation, we heard the following:
"The state Department of Central Management Services denied a Freedom of Information request filed by state Senators Dale Righter of Charleston and Peter Roskam from the Chicago suburbs to see a copy of the state's contract with Caremark RX Inc.
"Caremark, a Tennessee-based company, manages pharmacy benefits for some 225,000 state government workers, dependents and retirees. The agency released only a copy of the contract that was redacted, with much of the most important information missing.
"Incredibly, Caremark went to court to prevent the release of the publicly funded contract to publicly elected officials. The dirty little secret contained in the contract between Caremark and the state of Illinois was a provision that gave Caremark the authority to determine what information would be released ... the private company contracting with the state controlled what public information would be released. The state not only agreed to allow it to happen, it codified it in a contract."
We also heard about a "Worsty" heading to Ford County. "Ford County Sheriff Bill Kean refused to turn over his department's employment policy manual to the County Board. The County Board filed an FOI request formally asking for access to the manual. Sheriff Kean denied the request on the grounds he believes the County Board has no right to intrude in the operation of his department. County Board members, meanwhile, said they need the information for insurance coverage and other purposes."
Doug Ray, president and CEO of the Daily Herald in Arlington Heights and the new IPA board president, underscored the lack of penalties for violators of the two acts. He said there's little consequence or punishment when local government officials abuse their authority by not complying with the acts.
"The IPA is a private newspaper association, and we don't have the authority to hold violators accountable for their actions," Ray said.
Even though a newspaper group is organizing these "awards" -- this is not a media issue. It's your issue more than ours.
The public's business should be done in public, and that's becoming more difficult for a number of reasons.
And after more than 25 years in the newspaper business, I realize a lot of these violations are done in ignorance.
But many are not.
Doing the public's business in public can be difficult. But there's no other way for a democracy to work. Here's hoping the "Worsties" have a short life -- although I'm afraid that won't happen.
Terry Greenberg is editor of The Pantagraph. Contact him at (309) 820-3230 or at tgreenberg@pantagraph.com
John Curry to Bill Leibensperger: please help us understand some things before OEA and CORE sit on the same side of the table
Bill, after talking to Molly, I understand you believe that some of Dr. Leone's findings might have been exaggerated. Please correct me if that's not the case. Below is a list of items Dr. Leone has given as examples misspending and mismanagement at Ohio STRS. Would you please comment on any item or items below that you feel is not completely truthful and factual and/or any other items that you think Dennis might have not portrayed properly? This would be an excellent opportunity for you and the OEA to enlighten tens of thousands of STRS retirees who are still waiting for an explanation of why your OEA President Gary Allen said that Dr. Leone's "logic is hard to follow," and that "his motives are unclear." This may help us understand for once and for all. Now would be an excellent time to clear up any disagreements your organization may have with Leone's findings before your organization and my organization sit on the same side of the table to tell Ohio voters why increased contribution rates are necessary Thank you.
John Curry, a Proud CORE member
P.S. I would have asked you this in person this past Thursday at the STRS meeting, but I had to work (after my STRS retirement). I simply can't afford what many recent OEA member speakers to the STRS board in the September meeting portrayed to the Board as a CURRENTLY "affordable" health care insurance offering to my spouse and I by STRS.
The following represent a number of spending abuses discovered by Dennis Leone that occurred at STRS since 1995.
1. $94.2 million on the new STRS headquarters.
2. $869,235 on artwork, sculptures and polished stones for the new STRS building.
3. $818,000 on a child care services center for the children of STRS employees.
4. $500,000 per year to run the child care services center.
5. $426,000 on a fitness center in the STRS building.
6. $88,397 per year to provide food services for STRS employees.
7. $428,056 on 16 cars, vans, and SUV's.
8. STRS Board policy that permitted staff members to drive STRS vehicles for personal use, and the family members of said employees to drive said vehicles.
9. 52 American Express Credit Cards and 20 BG gas cards used Board members and STRS staff members.
10. Alcohol purchases occurred by staff members and Board members attending conferences -- using STRS credit cards.
11. $18,810 on "Discovery Park" gala event, including the purchase of disposable cameras for attendees.
12. $15,100 on new STRS building dedication, including alcohol and gifts for attendees, as well as airfare and lodging for out-of-town STRS visitors.
13. $4,100 on a private retirement party for an STRS Board member.
14. $5,594 on poinsettias to decorate STRS during the holiday season in 2002.
15. $1,000 dinners for 12 board members/staff members on 2 occasions, again with alcohol.
16. $7,116 for baseball tickets, concert tickets, movie rentals, and Kings Island tickets for STRS employees in the summer of 2003 for "team building."
17. $530,284 spent by Board on trips and meetings around the country in 2000, 2001, and 2002.
18. Multiple trips taken by Board members and staff to places like Honolulu, Palm Springs, Kiawah Island, and Anchorage. A planned trip to China in 1995 was cancelled after it was suggested that it would have the appearance of junketeering.
19. Frequent occurrences of at least 6 Board members going to the same meeting, sometimes twice a year, costing STRS over $9,000 each year.
20. $36,736 spent by a Board member Jack Chapman in a single year for trips all over the country.
21. $1,017 airplane ticket for a Board member that would have cost $258 if it had been purchased 30 days in advance of the conference.
22. $1 million cash payback per year to full-time STRS employees for 18 days of unused staff vacation days and unused sick leave.
23. Total administrative expenses at STRS increased 17.4% per year between 1996 and 2002.
24. Total STRS employees increased from 414 to 725 between 1996 and 2002.
25. A total of 1,035 employee bonus checks were issued to STRS staff in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
26. $24.4 million was awared in bonus checks to employees between 1998 and 2003.
27. $3.2 million had to be paid by STRS to PERS because of bonuses alone since 1998 to satisfy that pension system's 13.31% annual employee contribution requirement. STRS employees are members of PERS.
28. 34 STRS employees in 2002 received bonus checks in excess of $40,000 (with 18 of those getting bonuses in excess of $70,000).
29. One STRS employee received bonus checks of $110,000 and $68,800 in 2001 on top his base salary of $164,000.
30. Over 150 STRS employees had base salaries over $100,000 in 2002, with 32 of those making over $155,000 -- topping the salaries of both the governor and the chief justice of the State Supreme Court.
31. A total of $39,251 was paid to the Perry Local School District by STRS in 2002 and 2003 for sub teacher costs for Board member Michael Billirakis (when he attended STRS meetings), even though he did not have a position in the school district. NEA pays Perry Local the dollar amount associated with the salary and beneifts for Billirakis, enabling him to be listed as an employee.
32. Excess STRS furniture was sold to STRS employees in 2000 and 2001 for $27,703, and instead of this amount going back into the pension fund, it was given to charities.
33. The regular work week for STRS employees is 37 1/2 hours.
34. If an STRS employee adopts a child, the STRS Board awards a $5,000 cash gift to said employee.
35. Between 1999 and 2004, the STRS Board paid out $2.1 million in educational stipends for STRS employees to take college courses. This amount was double what the other 4 public pension systems in Ohio paid out combined over the same time period. STRS pays up to $7,000 per year (per employee) for undergraduate or graduate work.
Another example of hospitals billing YOU instead of the insurance company
From Molly Janczyk
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Subject: Hospital Bills
It appears the hospital, Mt Carmel, that treated my mother is trying to get more money from me. She has died. They sent me a bill for $11,308 stating due upon receipt NOW. Their staff will help me make payments they state.
I called and left the message I had indeed rec'd a bill trying to address a period of time already paid for...............they took that period and rebilled it..........one was billed inpatient and one outpatient. I informed them it had been paid per Med. Mut. and I was NOT responsible for another payment after Medicare and Med Mut. paid them. If they had a problem they should contact Med Mutual and Medicare but Med Mut had already told me NOT to pay and I was NOT responsible.
This is an example of how folks get caught in thinking they owe beyond what they do. Mt Carmel was in network for my mother and they must except what Medicare and Med Mut.'s Usual customary Rate (UCR).
My mother, now deceased, does not owe more than her deductible and max out of pockets THRU OPERS which is less than STRS.
Many folks fall for this. NEVER PAY MORE THAN YOUR INSURANCE PROVIDER TELLS YOU IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY which IS NEVER MORE THAN YOUR DEDUC ($500) AND $1500 OUT OF POCKET FOR STRS. Each person has a $2000 max for medical costs IN NETWORK. If you go out of network, you start a new deductible of $1000 I believe and $3000 out of pocket.
So always check that your medical providers are IN NETWORK OF "MED MUT PLUS", not just Med Mut. which has many plans.
Molly Janczyk
John Curry to John Brandt: Where was the OSBA during the big spending spree at STRS?
Mr. Brandt,
I do realize that your organization has and will continue to take a hard-line position on any proposed increases in the employer contribution rate to STRS. There has been a considerable amount of misspending, mismanagement, and entitlement philosphy during the reign of the "old" STRS Board. This brings me to this question: Why was the OSBA silent concerning this misspending, mismanagement, and entitlements when these were being practiced at STRS. After all, 14% of every earned "teacher dollar" of the monies that your boards contributed to STRS were involved. If I am incorrect about your organization's lack of criticism of the STRS for doing what they did, please enlighten me by sending copies of any and all critical articles or news releases issued by your organization against these STRS practices. Thank you.
John Curry - a Proud CORE member
10/22/05
Duane Tron: WHO didn't plan properly, Mr. Brandt?
Duane to Molly
Oct. 22, 2005
I told you he is another uncaring idiot that knows nothing about anything. He tells us it's our problem because we didn't plan adequately for our retirement??!! Many of us did plan adequately and this is why we haven't lost our house, car among other things. We did save and lost a bundle to the "fat" cats in 2002 when the market went south.
Those of us working in the poor and rural schools were at a decided disadvantage when it came to saving a lot as our pay was very LOW. We worked for most of our careers at substandard wages in substandard working conditions. And this jerk, the president of OSBA, has the unmitigated nerve to imply that we didn't plan properly??!! We did plan based on the pitiful wages we earned over 25-30 years. Let's see??!! It took me nearly ten years to pay off my student loans since my family couldn't afford to pay for me to attend college. I joined the military and used the GI Bill to help offset my college expenses.
I was then told that I NEEDED to return to college and obtain a Master's Degree, in addition to ongoing CEU's, to upgrade my certification. Did any of the school systems I worked for reimburse or pay for any of the thousands of dollars I expended during this time??!! NOT!!!
Mr. Brandt wishes to imply that we didn't plan properly! With what??! I spent another seven years paying off the loans I needed to obtain my Master's Degree! I spent 17 years of my teaching career paying back money I borrowed so I could become an impoverished teacher. I guess Mr. Brandt assumes we all were born with silver spoons in our mouths? I guess he assumes we all graduated from high school and went to college and started working in the high dollar school systems!!
When I quit my job in 1970 to start teaching it took me 15 years to get back to the salary I was making in the corporate sector before I chose to become a teacher. Imagine that??!! Then this Mr. Brandt wants to engage us and accuse us of poor planning! Oh! I forgot! As soon as I paid off my loan for my Master's I had to start paying for my daughter to attend college. Unlike our parents my wife and I promised our daughter that we would pay for her attend college. The last of her student loans will be paid off next year. Imagine that??!!
Mr. Brandt has his head up his you know what but that doesn't surprise me. There seem to be a lot of people with their heads up their you know what's these days!! It has reached epidemic proportions in Ohio.
Molly he said he doesn't know anything about your personal circumstances among other things. It wasn't in plain text, as it was on WordPad, and I had to try and decipher what he sent you. I'll try and send it to you so you can see what kind of morons we're dealing with. There weren't any surprises in anything he said! Just another uncaring and insensitive political hack who thinks he knows a lot about a lot of things, and knows very little about anything!!! My take for what it's worth!!
Duane
More correspondence with John Brandt (Molly Janczyk and Jim Kimmel)
From John Brandt
October 21, 2005
Subject: Re: Today's news release re. proposed increases in contribution rates to STRS
Ms Janczyk I don't think you and I will ever find common ground on this matter. I'll make a few final points
1. STRS revenue has grown considerably over the years. Contribution rates are a percentage of payroll and payroll usually meets or exceeds inflation. Further, STRS has a very sophisticated investment operation and they generally exceed the average stock market return.
2. GM, airlines and others are reducing beefits that affect both active and retired employees. Today's Columbus Dispatch has a story about Honda benefit reductions. Teachers are not the only ones facing this terrible problem.
3. You are exactly right that people should have known that costs might catch up with revenues. You should be asking STRS why they did not manage their resources better for years. For many years STRS paid all retirees an extra 13th check. On more than one occasion they went to the Legislature and obtained approval for expensive changes in the formula for calculating retirement benefits. You and your colleagues sat back and allowed those things to happen and nobody cared that STRS might need that money down the road. Now you and STRS have to pay the price for that spending.
My correspondence with you has been informative and I truly have sympathy for the difficulties you face. I am not saying "make do", I'm saying that work needs to be done to make STRS benefits work as well as possible for all members. You can't avoid that work by simply asking for someone else to pay the bill.
John M Brandt
OSBA
From Molly
October 21, 2005
I am reactive to your initial comments. However, STRS has made reductions and no amount at this point will cover the untendable and catastrophic increases which occurred in a short period. Your thinking does not allow for inflation and increases over a 20-30 year timeline. It is that simple. Do YOU ask for for more for YOUR benefits and work or simply made do with YOUR consideration assets from 20-30 years ago. Costs increase. When they do, more money is needed. With this line of thinking, NO ONE should EVER get increases but simply make do. Pensions have to be paid and unfunded liability needs reasonable planning. HC suffers and with it, retirees have faced losing homes, assests and refuse medical care. YOU know all this and simply saying make do is not in any way acceptable. GM should make do. Airlines should make do. Welfare recipients should make do. Costs have increased beyond anyone's expectations and you know that as well.
To say STRS has this much money does not break down where that money goes. Perhaps YOU need look at the figures and tell them WHERE the HC should come from. Many were promised HC and pensions and lost both. So, that is the problem, for you, and that is that. NO increases should EVER be made incrementally to cover soaring prices and allow educators respectability and security.
The problem is: We became educators for little and only wanted modest retirements to teach your children. But you and the taxpayers wish to turn your backs on us and simply say make do. Well, retirement has been taken and all who can returned to work and we still cannot make do. Yes, we saved and planned. But educators do not make enough to save enough to EVER pay for HC and few better off can pay for it either.
Simplistic thinking and leaves no room for solutions. Staying with 14% for 20-30 yrs HAD to catch up someday. DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? There is no other way and you know this as well.
Molly J.
From John Brandt
Oct 21, 2005
Ms Janczyk
I have no intention of insulting you and I don't believe I am. I have not referred to you as "insulting and superficial" or "rigid in your thinking." You might want to think about who is being insulting. You have put your finger on the problem. It appears that STRS misled you into relying on their health care benefits when they had no right to do so. You should be angry at them, not me. All I have said is that STRS should not fix its problems by taking money away from public education. STRS, you and your colleagues should be discussing ways to get the maximum value out of the considerable resources available to the system. STRS,. OEA and others have had a committee working for years on dealing with the health care problem. After all that work, the best they can do is to simply ask for more money rather than buckle down and make some difficult decisions
John M Brandt
OSBA
From Molly
October 20, 2005
Mr. Brandt, I actually have to face my problems. I am, sir and I always have. However, STRS in effect did promise me health care and many other current retirees. We have the literature to prove it. 'HC second to none.. ..........It is not necessary for you to purchase other insurance which would erode your pension.' Consults with counselors who said we'd never have to worry about health care many times. Promissory Estoppel:
1. We were made a promise.
2. It was reasonable to believe it based on decades of literature and rhetoric.
3. I changed behavior as a result. We didn't purchase other HC. Your tone and reasoning is insulting and superficial. I have heard you are rigid in your thinking and just no is no. Your thinking says: I am a fool to have believed my pension system's literature and consults for many years. Therefore it is my problem to deal with.
I have been told by those taxpayers you mention that it is my responsibility, not theirs, to educate their child when I asked for homework as simple as even practice reading and study math facts, never mind finish work, projects, etc. not done in school. WHY do those taxpayers think we work with their children? WHY do they work? Rates and benefits have to be competitive with other state jobs or they will not become educators or stay in the field. WHAT DO YOU think maintains good education? Oh, just the pure joy! Correct? Answer, YES! But we have families and health problems like all others we need to address and we did.
To keep good educators, YOU have to do something to attract them, not just complain or say no to use your logic. 2-3 decades of the same contribution % will not keep educators nor attract them. WOULD YOU like to be an educator in Ohio right now? Ohio is NOT competitive in education funding of any kind and ranks poorly always with attention to educational issues.
Inflation, I am sure you are familiar with that term, increases many times over 2-3 decades and yet no incremental contribution increases to deal with it. Taxpayers want quality education and quality graduates to make Ohio competitive which it is no longer. Without attractive benefits for educators, Ohio continues to lose. You can't just say you want that and do nothing to keep it. Incremental increases preserves a profession long undervalued. Thank you.
Molly J.
From Jim Kimmel
October 21, 2005
Subject: Increase STRS Deductions
Mr. Brandt:
You need to understand that any increase in payroll deductions for the active teachers will help them in the future as well. Otherwise it will be even worse for them than it is now for those of us facing exorbitant health insurance premiums and no 13th check. As a representative of OSBA you are trying to treat us retirees the same as you treat teachers who come to you for a raise -- blame us for it all!.I also think you are more concerned about the amount of money taken from school board coffers than from the paychecks of teachers.
Why are you not complaining about the fact that rehires take STRS health care instead of receiving health insurance from local boards? The same reason you oppose any rate hikes to schools from STRS. That reason is that you do not want to pay your fair share. When I was teaching I did not mind a small increase in STRS withholding for promise of a better retirement later on. Most won't -- unless of course you and the OEA try to play actives and retirees against each other.
Before you complain about any increases why not have schools start paying the health insurance of rehires? And by the way- these same experienced educators, formerly at the top of the pay scale, come back at a much lower pay scale yet bring their expertise and experience with them. What a Deal! And yet you accuse retirees of asking too much.If you insist on the free ride of rehires' health insurance paid by STRS and experienced rehires at bargain basement rates then you can certainly pay a little more to STRS.for the benefit of the retirees who taught many of those now teaching.
One other thing -- I really resent your attempt to somehow implicate retirees in the wasteful spending at STRS. We never asked for any of the perks (we never got any) and expensive actions at STRS.You should apologize to ALL RETIREES for that statement. We are the victims, not the perpetrators. As you know those perpetrators are being prosecuted as I write this.
I think it was Ayn Rand who wrote in a novel that "Some people count, and some people don't." I guess if you believe that I have wasted my time in writing this letter. Have you considered moving to Alaska? You might be more comfortable in a place where they just put the old people out on the ice when they can no longer be profitable.
James O. Kimmel
Proud CORE Member
STRS Retiree
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Duane Tron: What's wrong with this picture?
"There is something really wrong with this picture!! They are still receiving their paychecks and health insurance, which is much better than ours, and we have been penalized and were forced to pay nearly 40% of our retirement checks for health insurance, et al, for a benefit we WERE promised when we retired. We were PROMISED! Nobody told us that they might take it away!"
10/21/05
What is the difference between the employees being promised a benefit verbal) and having it denied, abolished, and our situation??? Please help me understand how employees can be entitled to bonuses for doing their jobs? The promise wasn't in writing and wasn't a negotiated item. There was never any negotiated contract or written agreement! We were promised (verbal) a benefit, spousal subsidy, and that was taken away and we have been required to pay huge increases to have insurance. The non-investment employees haven't been financially penalized as they never received the money in the first place. This is quite unlike our circumstance where we were receiving a benefit and that benefit was then taken away, thus, causing thousands of us serious financial damage and harm. There isn't any law that guarantees any employee any bonus in any business that I'm aware of. Isn't this kind of like the spousal subsidy that was in place for forty years + and then taken away with very little advance warning, or notice. The actions of the STRS Board caused us much more financial harm than denying a bonus to non-investment staff has caused them.
There is something really wrong with this picture!! They are still receiving their paychecks and health insurance, which is much better than ours, and we have been penalized and were forced to pay nearly 40% of our retirement checks for health insurance, et al, for a benefit we WERE promised when we retired. We were PROMISED! Nobody told us that they might take it away!
Who is this judge? We need to file a class action lawsuit to recover the spousal subsidy!! If they can file a flim flam lawsuit and win I would think we have more justification, grounds, than they have! Oh! I get it?! A person can't really get justice in the courts in this country anymore. That became obvious when not a single Ohio Law firm was willing to represent us. Not the wonderful Mr. Clermont County, Democrat Emeritus, champion of the little people, champion of the working people, and definitely not any law firm headed by Republicans. This is because of their special interest causes to which they find their bread buttered. Justice??? The attorneys of this state don't give a rat's you know what about "right" or "justice." They only care about their bank accounts and profits, thus, the bottom line! One can only gain justice and relief if one can enhance and promote the careers of our illustrious and worthless lawyers, or pay them an obscene amount of money. These are the lawyers who are a bunch of hypocrites, windbags, and supposedly the champions of justice and right. RIIGHT??!!!
I used to tell my students, "get used to the fact that life isn't always fair." Little did I ever perceive that I would get to experience this first-hand. in my latter years. I have a great idea!!! We need to tie our issue to something religious and then the ACLU lawyers and all of the rest would jump in line to take our case. We've just been going about all of this the wrong way!!
Duane Tron
Friday, October 21, 2005
STRS employees: hope you feel good about your huge bonuses while old, sick retirees suffer huge HC bills on incomes a fraction of your bonus alone
Judge says teachers pension system owes bonuses
By PAUL E. KOSTYU
Copley Columbus Bureau
October 21, 2005
COLUMBUS - The State Teachers Retirement System broke its contract with 268 of its employees and now owes them $1.75 million, a judge ruled this week. And the bill could go much higher.
In two rulings this week, Franklin County Judge Guy L. Reece II said noninvestment employees in a class-action suit against the pension system should receive bonuses withheld for the 2002-03 fiscal year. They ranged from $416 to $46,573.
Reece also left open the door for employees to recover attorney fees and punitive damages, which could cost the pension system millions of dollars more. A jury trial date on those issues is set for Nov. 8. Early in the case, retirement system attorneys turned away efforts to reach a settlement.
A 2003 investigation by Copley Ohio Newspapers found that bonuses were awarded for tasks, called “stretch goals,” that many considered part of employees’ regular jobs.
The retirement system board responded by suspending and then later abolishing the bonus program. It also voted not to award the bonuses to noninvestment staff, overriding decisions to do so by former Executive Director Herbert Dyer and his successor, Damon Asbury. The board also ignored the advice of John E. Patterson, an assistant attorney general.
In a letter to the board, Patterson predicted the retirement system would lose a suit for failure to pay the incentives even though Attorney General Jim Petro, his boss, instructed his representative on the board to vote against the bonuses.
Among the 268 employees to receive bonuses are two deputy executive directors, Robert A. Slater, who will receive $46,573, Sandra L. Knoesel, $43,324, and the system’s former in-house attorney, Cynthia Hvizdos, $29,052.
Michael R. Szolosi Sr., a Columbus attorney representing the employees, said the delay in paying the bonuses opens the retirement system to a fine under state law.
Joseph I. Endry, whose term on the pension board ended this summer, voted to award the bonuses in May 2004.
“It’s going to cost STRS a lot more money than it would have if we would have passed this originally,” he said Thursday. “I feel I did the right thing. The employees were working in good faith.”
Endry said he was surprised by the timing of the judge’s decision. “I just got a call from Damon Asbury last week asking if I was willing to talk to attorneys representing STRS. I guess they thought they had time.”
Kim Norris, a spokeswoman for Petro, said attorneys are “reading the judgment and taking a look as to where to go next. The attorney general still feels the bonuses should not have been paid.”
Laura Ecklar, a spokeswoman for the retirement system, did not return telephone calls seeking comment. The rulings were expected to be discussed by the board at its monthly meeting Thursday and today.
Reach Copley Columbus Bureau Chief Paul E. Kostyu at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail:
paul.kostyu@cantonrep.com
http://www.cantonrep.com
This page was created October 21, 2005 ©2005 The Repository
----------------------------------------
By PAUL E. KOSTYU
Copley Columbus Bureau chief
"But the culture enveloped more than employees. The so-called 13th benefit check was sent to retirees for years while investments were good. They depended on the extra monthly payment, which they felt they deserved and had been promised. That entitlement ended when investments soured in the early 2000s. Nobody sued the system.
"But the culture enveloped more than employees. The so-called 13th benefit check was sent to retirees for years while investments were good. They depended on the extra monthly payment, which they felt they deserved and had been promised. That entitlement ended when investments soured in the early 2000s. Nobody sued the system.
"Health care is another STRS entitlement. The system is not obligated by law to provide health care coverage, but it does. Asbury has said there is no retirement without affordable health care. Sounds like a promise. But the care is no longer affordable for many retirees and their spouses. Nobody sued the system."
COLUMBUS -- The noninvestment employees of the State Teachers Retirement System should sue the pension fund. Doing so would tell us something about them.
Last week, the pension board rejected paying bonuses to 268 employees despite the recommendations of Executive Director Damon Asbury and Assistant Attorney General John E. Patterson. Both said the pension fund risked a lawsuit that it would likely lose. The employees should sue.
Asbury said the board had a legal obligation to pay the employees for completing their “stretch goals” in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. It wasn’t a stretch to see that those goals were really little more than what many considered the employees’ regular duties.
Paying the bonuses would perpetuate an STRS culture of entitlement, which flourished under former Executive Director Herbert L. Dyer. His undoing came from publicly proclaiming that the money flowing into STRS from members and investments was the board’s money to spend as it wished.
But the culture enveloped more than employees. The so-called 13th benefit check was sent to retirees for years while investments were good. They depended on the extra monthly payment, which they felt they deserved and had been promised. That entitlement ended when investments soured in the early 2000s. Nobody sued the system.
Health care is another STRS entitlement. The system is not obligated by law to provide health care coverage, but it does. Asbury has said there is no retirement without affordable health care. Sounds like a promise. But the care is no longer affordable for many retirees and their spouses. Nobody sued the system.
The bonus plan for noninvestment employees was abolished last week in the wake of questionable spending at STRS for travel, artwork, expenses and salaries. Surely employees are entitled to just one more bonus. They should sue.
STRS culture fits with an American culture based on greed. That’s the only way to explain why employees would sue. All those eligible for a bonus are the most highly paid STRS employees. We’re not talking about the janitors, secretaries, security guards or any of the hundreds of other dedicated STRS workers.
We’re talking about their bosses, those who rake in high five- and six-figure salaries annually. We’re talking about many bonuses in the neighborhood of $30,000 and $40,000. The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the person eligible for the lowest bonus — less than $200 — is a teacher.
The staff members receive regular compliments from the board about how wonderful they are, how hard they work, how dedicated they are to retirees, actives and the system.
The employees should sue. Let’s see how dedicated they really are. Do they work for a more-than-decent paycheck and the satisfaction of being STRS employees, or are they in it for every dollar they can grab in bonuses, even if they haven't done much to earn them?
Let’s not be too surprised if greed is the answer. We’re living in an era of corporate greed — Enron, Martha Stewart, Tyco and others. It’s a long list.
There was a time when people were satisfied with having a job. There was a time when people took pride in their work. There was a time when “nice job” was a sufficient bonus. Not anymore.
The employees should sue.
They need to do so soon, before tort reform kicks in and limits the amount they can recover. It’s hard to see how employees could collect punitive damages. There was no purposeful intent to harm them. They’ll ask for damages any way — attorney fees, too. They’re entitled.
Here’s what employees ought to do. If they really are dedicated to STRS and not driven by greed, prove it. Do they want the system to escape the scandalous morass of the last year and move forward? Stipulate in their lawsuit that if they win or settle, all the money received — the bonuses, attorney fees and punitive damages — goes into the STRS Health Stabilization Fund for retirees. If employees want to show they deserve the bonuses, then the money shouldn’t matter. Why punish the employer they supposedly love just to prove a point? Or is it really about greed?
Employees should sue so we can find out.
I got a big bonus at the board’s meeting last week for doing my job. Several retirees, whom I’d never met before but who had been reading my stories about STRS, shook my hand.
“Thank you,” they said.
You can reach Copley Columbus Bureau Chief Paul E. Kostyu
at (614) 222-8901 or e-mail:
This page was created May 28, 2004
CORRECTION: The 10 percent in the story was a reference to the general increase in health-care costs, not what retirees have to pay
I have seen some of the emails sent and noticed that one of the writers referred to an AP story that was taken from the Dispatch story Wednesday. The AP story stated that Laura Ecklar said the increase to retirees was 10 percent. She never said that. The 10 percent in the story was a reference to the general increase in health-care costs, also know as health-care inflation, not to the increased amount that retirees have to pay. If the AP wrote the latter, it was wrong. You may want to pass that along to the person who wrote the letter complaining about Ms. Ecklar's calculations.
From a writer who wishes to remain anonymous
10/20/05
Tom Curtis' speech to STRS Board 10/20/05
The following 3 minute presentation was written to be delivered to the STRS board on September 15th. It appeared on various email chains on the 14th & 15th. Due to time contraints I passed until this month.
Tom Curtis
10/20/05
Good afternoon board members, executive staff and guests. My name is Thomas Curtis. I am speaking today on my own behalf. I am an STRS disability retiree with 27 years of service. I am a life member of CORE, ORTA, Stark Co. RTA and the AARP.
Today is a day that others and I have envisioned for two years! Dr. Dennis Leone and John Lazares are now both members of the STRS board, along with others, that few would have envisioned a little over two years ago. This is truly a historic day for our STRS. This day marks the beginning of what I hope will be the beginning of a cohesive board, dedicated to the reform of the STRS, which in my opinion is long past due.
The reform I speak of concerns the "corporate culture" that overwhelmingly clouded the view of our fiduciaries for over a decade now. Those fiduciaries clearly lost touch with their membership while lavishing themselves with large salaries and benefits far better then most corporations. The STRS is not a Corporation and should not be considered as such. Many of the extraordinary benefits have been eliminated over the past two years, but this reform process is far from complete. I am confident that this board and others that will follow on this board, will never again loose sight of who they are here to represent, as stated in the Ohio Revised Code, section 3307.15. This section, as Dennis Leone desires, should be printed in large print and posted in every department of this building, visible to all that are employed here.
The STRS management and Board did not publicize a 2002 compensation study completed by Buck Consultants for the STRS. I will assume this was due to the nature of many of the findings in that report. Various CORE members just recently received a copy of those findings. The report indicates the employees of the STRS are compensated as well, or better, then outside profit or not-for-profit organizations of equal status. The report indicates bonuses were given to some investment and non-investment staff for little more then doing their job. That is unacceptable! These are just two issues the STRS executive staff has attempted to minimize to the membership for the past two years. The STRS employees need to realize that they work for us, the membership and not a corporation. We have supplied the dedicated flow of income staff derive their livelihood from. The staff should not abuse our faith and trust, as some have done in the past. We simply want value for every dollar spent in the operation of this retirement system. That certainly is not out of line to ask.
I will end with a quote from the September "Science of Mind" - Daily Guides for Richer Living. "False ideas heaped upon false ideas make bad matters worse. The whole confusion of the world arises from fundamental error of thought."
Thank you for permitting me to address the board today. I look forward to communicating with each of you as you serve your term on the STRS board.
Thomas Curtis - A Proud Malcontent
Public speeches at 10/20/05 STRS Board meeting; summarized by Molly
STRS BOARD MEETING: 10/20/05: Speeches/HC Committee Meeting
There was no problem today with 8 speakers pretty well divided between OEA and CORE. No issues at all ensued.
1. Tom Curtis: online speech will follow.
2. Glenna Barr: Highland Co. Welcome new board members.
* Meeting for annual retreat in Feb and making plans for 2007 HC. STRS staff should be able to use expertise before the Feb retreat to negotiate steepest discounts available with PBM, HC co.s, and Dr. groups to present options for different HC and PBM companies. Need to review Aetna program. If not giving good service, why keep? I am thinking seriously of changing to Med Mut.
*We need affordable rates and have good reliable HC programs as the retiree is required to pay larger part of HC bill, deductibles, esp. the non medicare group. The premiums should be more = or we will have a higher rate of reverse selection which hurts STRS HC program.
*The retirees need compounded COLAS to give more revenue as Medicare is increasing on average of 12% each yr. as well as increase in HC premiums.
*I hope efforts of HCA will help us in this problem but they have not given much info as to what is happening.
*I comment CORE and Dr. Leone for being here the last 3 yrs. and being strong advocates for the retirees. Quoting one of our retirees: STRS retirees in Ohio are beyond hurting but desparately need relief. 2006 HC has been decided but 2007 could be better with lower RX copays, deduc., premiums.
3.John _______ (active):
2 issues: STRS and HC.
Market south and HC costs up.
1 source of $$$ is contributions.
My Idea: LEGISLATION UP TO 15% for actives and employer. More for active and less for employer-school districts.
Penalize those who leave STRS HC and are covered elsewhere and come back to STRS when ill for coverage which is a liability.
I am happy with direction and plan of HCA for increasing contributions.
4. Gary Howland (?)
Recognize HC problem. Read news. STRS: retire w/o HC is not retirement.
Preventative Care cheaper:
Prescriber Advisor
Renal Programs
Low Income Assis.
Maintain affordable HC #1 priority.
Adverse selection difficult to prevent when costs soar.
5. Mary Ellen Angeletti:
Read our legal position from CORE attorney stating STRS would not win in court enforcing no naming rule. *Damon commented earlier he agreed with this and the measure was really to contain namecalling, profanity, etc. He agreed basically with the statement re: naming public persons was not the problem. Mary Ellen also addressed speaking slots being equitable.
6. Bob Buerkle (klee)
'80-82: unfunded liability 59 and 57 yrs.
'76-95 : always over 30 yrs. '73: 35 yr. benefit reduced to 32 yrs.
'74 STRS Annual Report: coverages important with RX and no deduc. Medical Ins. in place at retirement but now........ If cost sharing had been done long ago, we might have survived. By 2003, benefits which were promised and paid were shot.
7. Lloyd Knudsen:
"Smoothing" to take long term approach : things go up and things go down and over time = out or smooth out.
This is still indicated by smoothing mentality: Mike B. not corp., not district, 50 yrs. liability doesn't scare me; don't have to account like corp. does.
STRS lost so if don't change smoothing attitude, if always take long term approach, don't deal with what is happening to retirees in short term, like what is happening to them now, when something occurs. Need to deal with short term also. Ask what is happening to our 'stockholders' retirees) now as result during this time?
8. Chris Williams: Active: Pres of 905 members of _______
I heard about a comment last month: "WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN?" Meaning actives.
Well, I've been in my classroom as I expected my assoc. OEA to be my advocate as evidence suggested they would focus on benefits.
THANKS to board and staff for the proposal to increase contributions.
HERE I AM THANKING STRS.
Leone then asked to speak and address Chris. Bob Brown said it was not the rule but he would entertain a motion to do so. Lazares moved and Buser seconded.
LAZARES moved that elected board members should be able to answer concerns, ques. and that at times speakers say things which may contain an error leaving that misunderstood. People need to be able to address the STRS board also. I am elected and people need to be able to address me.
FISHER: I was told don't chose to ans. as we may err w/o reflection.
LEONE: SOME are appointed and some elected and as an elected member, we need respond to and ans concerns. I know when I stood on the other side I was frustrated to speak at you with no repsonse.
RAMSER: I don't think I need to respond with no time to think; that this is a time to listen and then thinnk over pts to be able to respond.
LEONE AND LAZARES: Agreed. IF one does not wish to respond as with other boards, you do not have to do so.
Vote: all yes that Leone could respond except :
No: Puckett, Fisher, Brown
Leone responds to active Chris Williams:
I don't feel Chris Williams should have to be here either as your organization should have but OEA has not been vocal to this board on your behalf.
I said WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN? I am glad you are here to speak now but where were you prior to SB 133 and when your presence was needed and the going was tough? (applause)
BUSER: MOVE for Leone to sketch out plan for public participation; if board member wish to respond , able to if not, don't have to do so. Leone agrees. NO ONE HAS TO but the ability to do so will be in place.
Brown: Tradition has it that policies have been changed; reviewed at the Feb retreat which is what I personally prefer.
Puckett: Feb is good as I can discuss and reflect without acrimony.
LAZARES: This isn't the godfather here: not the mafia; it is a democracy and esp. if elected; not to be confrontational and as I said before we can correct any errors or misunderstandings as well. It will help the board in an organized opportunity to address and answer.
****IT WAS EXCELLENT AND NEW DIRECTIONS HAVE BEGUN FOR THE GOOD! Damon seemed happy and relaxed about the changes and did not wish for there to be any problem over speakers and slots. I felt he was prepared to deal with any issue by his demeanor and attitude. He was direct and specific in his remarks after the meetings and seemed genuinely ready to greet a new day. (my take at the time).
From Molly Janczyk
Show us your plan: Tom Cooper to John Brandt
Mr. Brandt;
You are correct. Planning is a very important part of our own welfare. I would like to know exactly when it was that you announced the osbs plan to fund your re-hiring on the backs of the retirees whom you now insult, so that they would have time to plan for their own welfare? I would like to examine in the published document, just how much time current retirees had after osba made their policy to fund their scheme, that Ohio teachers and retirees had to plan for? There is absolutely no way that the osba did not know in advance that their scheme to make life difficult for those who spent their lives serving the taxpayers, which you claim to represent, without knowing that STRS would and retirees would have to bear the cost of your scheme, with NO time to plan or prepare.
The fact is, Mr. Brandt, the real problem is arrogant people like you who scheme to make others pay for their programs to promote their own political and fnancial power. One has to wonder what benefits and laughter was exchanged behind closed doors when your "plans" to rip off the system for your own political and financial promotion, and cut people whoserved YOU and taxpayers off at the knees.
Since you are an expert on planning, how about explaining that plan, and when it was presented in a way to suit ALL of society?
Tom Cooper
10/21/05
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Cathy Burner sheds a little light on Mr. Brandt
From Cathy Burner
10/19/05
I would like to remind the educators of Ohio I attended a meeting of the Health Care Advocates in 2003. At this meeting Mr. Brandt, OSBA Director, responded at the mention of an increase in employer contribution he would throw the entire STRS system into Social Security. He also added he had the legislative influence to do so.
Lies and "spin" on the numbers: Jim Kimmel
From Jim Kimmel
10/19/05
Even if they just were comparing health premiums for the retiree and not the spouse ten percent raise would have taken the 61.00 premium each month and raised it to about 67.00 It is now 170.00 meaning that it is 2.8 times what it was for retiree in 2000. That alone is 278% just for the retiree. Where in blazes did they get 10%?. Maybe one of the catastrophic plans or the cheapest ones that few sign up for and which are not very good. Such lies and "spin"! Too bad we can't get a list of all the active teachers in the state and send them a newsletter once and a while.
Duane Tron: Mr. Brandt, get a life!
10/19/05
Dear Mr. Brandt and OSBA,
Mr. Brandt and the Ohio School Board's Association don't know what they're talking about. My daughter pays 18% of her income into her government pension fund and the government pays 18% into the fund. This factors out to 36% a year and we're paying 24% in. That's because my daughter's pension fund is solvent and will probably remain solvent when she retires in 19 years. My daughter's fund receives 12% more than we're paying and STRS is only seeking an increase of 2.5% over the next several years?? What is the issue?? We have to pay for OUR system because no one else is going to pay for our retirement. Mr. Brandt doesn't fully understand our circumstances and the dire forecasts down the road. Like everyone else he along with a lot of other people just can't seem to understand that people need to plan for the future and not just live in the present. It's just like OEA being in denial for all of these years and look at the problems retirees are having to face as a result of the "everything is all right now so not to worry or plan ahead mentality" that got us into the mess we find ourselves. What was that commercial that used to say, "you can pay us now or pay us later?!" Actives and OSBA need to understand that later has arrived and due to pitiful planning by them and OEA we find ourselves in a retirement mess! Mr. Brandt doesn't have a clue what's going on or what he's talking about!
Please convey to Mr. Brandt that OUR wonderful STRS retirement cost my wife and I a meager 39.43% of my gross retirement check last year. Ask him, and actives, if they would like to have to pay 39.43% of their annual checks for health insurance, co-pays, deductibles and prescription costs?!? And he wants to squeal about a possible 2.5 % increase for school boards and actives??!! Mr. Brandt, GET A LIFE! Those of us who gave 30+ years to educating the children of Ohio are being asked to make major sacrifices and suck it up now that we're retired. This was dumped on us AFTER we retired and we had NO support from OSBA, OEA or anyone else when we were slammed! Pay it now or it isn't going to be there for actives later! The bottom line!
Duane Tron
We didn't fire the first shot
From Duane E Tron
10/19/05
Please note! We didn't fire the first shot heard around the state in all of this. We are fighting for our survival in our "Golden Years." We did plan for our retirement! We did plan wisely and prudently! We were promised affordable and quality health insurance and that turned out to be a lie. One of a long stream of half truths and outright lies that we have been compelled to deal with. They did take the spousal subsidy and slammed us with outrageous costs that are eroding our ability to pay our bills and which have compelled many of us to return to work. Thus, the statewide controversy over rehires, etc. has become a distraction.
None of us condone the funding fiasco facing Ohio schools. We have all fought most of our active careers, and in retirement, to compel the Ohio General Assembly to fix the way schools are funded in Ohio. Most of us retirees are among the many who supported the Ohio Coalition of Schools in the battle against the way Ohio funds education. Then we get slammed by OSBA who think we are all well off and just cruising in retirement. Where was OSBA when STRS was destroying our HC component? AWOL! Now they want to argue that a 2.5% increase over the next several years is outrageous and unnecessary!
Next OSBA will argue that affordable and quality health insurance for ALL retirees, present and future, is unnecessary and an extravagant perk!
OSBA has basically indicated that they don't give a you know what about Ohio's ((CURRENT AND FUTURE)) retired educators. They've jumped in line with the Governor, AG, Auditor, OEA and others who feel that once they have used us, they can now abuse us, ignore us, and lose us! Wrong! Very wrong!
Duane Tron
Dear Mr. Brandt and OSBA,
Mr. Brandt and the Ohio School Board's Association don't know what they're talking about. My daughter pays 18% of her income into her government pension fund and the government pays 18% into the fund. This factors out to 36% a year and we're paying 24% in. That's because my daughter's pension fund is solvent and will probably remain solvent when she retires in 19 years. My daughter's fund receives 12% more than we're paying and STRS is only seeking an increase of 2.5% over the next several years?? What is the issue?? We have to pay for OUR system because no one else is going to pay for our retirement. Mr. Brandt doesn't fully understand our circumstances and the dire forecasts down the road. Like everyone else he along with a lot of other people just can't seem to understand that people need to plan for the future and not just live in the present. It's just like OEA being in denial for all of these years and look at the problems retirees are having to face as a result of the "everything is all right now so not to worry or plan ahead mentality" that got us into the mess we find ourselves. What was that commercial that used to say, "you can pay us now or pay us later?!" Actives and OSBA need to understand that later has arrived and due to pitiful planning by them and OEA we find ourselves in a retirement mess! Mr. Brandt doesn't have a clue what's going on or what he's talking about!
Please convey to Mr. Brandt that OUR wonderful STRS retirement cost my wife and I a meager 39.43% of my gross retirement check last year. Ask him, and actives, if they would like to have to pay 39.43% of their annual checks for health insurance, co-pays, deductibles and prescription costs?!? And he wants to squeal about a possible 2.5 % increase for school boards and actives??!! Mr. Brandt, GET A LIFE! Those of us who gave 30+ years to educating the children of Ohio are being asked to make major sacrifices and suck it up now that we're retired. This was dumped on us AFTER we retired and we had NO support from OSBA, OEA or anyone else when we were slammed! Pay it now or it isn't going to be there for actives later! The bottom line!
Duane Tron
We didn't fire the first shot
From Duane E Tron
10/19/05
Please note! We didn't fire the first shot heard around the state in all of this. We are fighting for our survival in our "Golden Years." We did plan for our retirement! We did plan wisely and prudently! We were promised affordable and quality health insurance and that turned out to be a lie. One of a long stream of half truths and outright lies that we have been compelled to deal with. They did take the spousal subsidy and slammed us with outrageous costs that are eroding our ability to pay our bills and which have compelled many of us to return to work. Thus, the statewide controversy over rehires, etc. has become a distraction.
None of us condone the funding fiasco facing Ohio schools. We have all fought most of our active careers, and in retirement, to compel the Ohio General Assembly to fix the way schools are funded in Ohio. Most of us retirees are among the many who supported the Ohio Coalition of Schools in the battle against the way Ohio funds education. Then we get slammed by OSBA who think we are all well off and just cruising in retirement. Where was OSBA when STRS was destroying our HC component? AWOL! Now they want to argue that a 2.5% increase over the next several years is outrageous and unnecessary!
Next OSBA will argue that affordable and quality health insurance for ALL retirees, present and future, is unnecessary and an extravagant perk!
OSBA has basically indicated that they don't give a you know what about Ohio's ((CURRENT AND FUTURE)) retired educators. They've jumped in line with the Governor, AG, Auditor, OEA and others who feel that once they have used us, they can now abuse us, ignore us, and lose us! Wrong! Very wrong!
Duane Tron
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Molly enlightens John Brandt
Mr. Brandt, You call this move unnecessary. My health care costs have gone from 0 to $148 and my spouse from $33 to $486 from 1999 to 2005 with increases coming in 2006. I receive a COL increase of 3% each year based on my first year of teaching. I am far behind with increasing losses of my pension each year. We range up to 800% increases in the last few years when you consider these premiums increases as well as 100% coverages taken down to 80% and deductibles increased from $100 up to $500 each. Then there are RX's which go from $30-$100 each which will go down to $20 each for generic instead of the $30. The average retiree home has 20 RX's x those figures. Where does anyone get 10% increases from these numbers?????????
NOW let us consider that: 1. Ohio is ranked among the bottom states for contributions of only 14% and Ohio is always ranked among the bottom regarding anything education funding wise. 2. 14% has been locked in for at least 20 if not 30 yrs. with NO increase for inflation.
COMPARE the other states and their employer contributions who have been better at staying with inflation. Increasing contributions IS THE ONLY RECOURSE OHIO EDUCATORS HAVE to secure a retirement with health care and again, THERE IS NO RETIREMENT WITHOUT HC!
.5% a year for 5 years in incremental and needs to help make up for long years of stagnant figures IF YOU WANT TO ATTRACT EDUCATORS TO OHIO AND TO STAY IN OHIO! Educators receive lower pay but count on retirement being secure with health care. THERE IS NO RETIREMENT WITHOUT HEALTHCARE! Nearly every able bodied retiree has to work in some capacity to pay for health premiums and costs. Some have sold homes and lost financial security. Others refuse medical treatment and meds because they cannot afford them. THIS IS ALL VERIFIABLE. BUT YOU WISH TO DECLARE WAR!
What is your suggestion, Sir to attract and keep educators in OHIO? Who will want to work in Ohio as an educator facing no benefits with retirement? No one can save enough to pay for their healthcare! NO ONE!
Yes, STRS is a mutibillion system with a 42 year unfunded liability. Without increases, current and future retirees will be put on catastrophic only coverage until that becomes unaffordable and then no HC at all. ONLY someone who does not have to worry about HC would wage war against the educators that we need to teach our children and begin to bring OHIO out of this dismal educational abyss.
You have made a most unreasonable, uncompromising, unfeeling and and uniformed statement. Just NO! Who cares about educators and their current and future retirements.
Molly Janczyk
STRS Retiree Actively working on this problem since 2002.
10/19/05
And more......
We need to generate money from a dedicated stream of revenue and this is THE only way to do so-increased contributions like other states have done. I would LOVE to have been told years ago that a few dollars a month now would preserve and secure retirement with health care. That .5% of my 3.5% raise would be taken to practically guarantee health care in my retirement instead of being told all was fine and retiring and then being being unfairly punished with 800% increases over several years I could not afford after my irrevocable decision to retire. Current retirees have had up to 800% increases over several years with 3% simple COLAS based on our first year of retirement. Therefore if you receive $70 clear one year that is the most you will ever hope to receive. Actives get raises every year and step increases so they will get COL increases and school districts need increase the 14% which has stayed stagnant for 20-30 years not allowing for inflation of health care at all. HOW ARE WE TO PAY FOR IT? HOW CAN FUTURE RETIREES EXPECT ANY HEALTH BENEFITS? Actives will not have health care at all unless funding is found. WHO CAN AFFORD TO SAVE FOR THEIR HC AND THEIR SPOUSE'S HC AT TODAY'S COSTS AND ESCALATING? WHAT IDEAS DOES BRANDT PROPOSE? NONE! JUST GIVES A TOTAL FOR STSR FUNDS. Pensions have to come from those funds, Mr. Brandt, and we are 42 years to the deficit: 12 years beyond what the state asks which is 30 yrs. STRS states it cannot contribute to HC unless STRS is at 30 yrs. unfunded liability according to what the State of Ohio asks which is why we need a constant source of revenue for HC.
(Written in response to another retiree):
Our prescription alone has risen 800% and out healthcare is much more than 10% You have to consider spouses and children. Who is Brandt kidding? Where did the OSBA get their figures. O.K. if they don't want an increase, they should demand a forensic audit so we can see where the money did and does go.
John Curry to John Brandt: Explain yourself; 115,000 retirees want to know
Today's news release re: proposed increases in contribution rates to STRS
10/19/05
John Curry's message to John Brandt, Executive Director, OSBA:
I am a retired educator under the STRS retirement system. Today, in the Akron Beacon Journal, I see a quote attributed to you as you about the proposed increase in contribution rates by both active teachers and school boards to the Ohio STRS. The quote I am focusing on is, "Brandt said the increases are unnecessary." This quote is in response to the topic of said increased contribution rates.
John, you may be "well heeled" when it comes to your personal finances, but there are tens of thousands of retirees who have dedicated their lives to teaching Ohio's youth who are "in a financial pickle" right now due to the ungodly high cost of STRS health care insurance.
I retired (with 30 years service) as a teacher in the year 2000. My health care insurance premium (through STRS) for my spouse and myself was $155 per month from Ohio STRS in the year 2000. Currently (6 years later) that same premium is $676 per month. That translates into an increase of 336%! Would you please explain to me and tens of thousands of retirees why "the increases are unnecessary?" The article that I am referring to can be viewed below. If you wish documentation, I will be glad to provide it to you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Curry
An STRS retiree and Proud Member of CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators)
Posted on Wed, Oct. 19, 2005
School boards girding for fight from teachers over benefits
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - School boards are promising to defeat a coalition of teachers' unions and pension funds that wants to increase contributions from teachers and their employers toward health care benefits for retirees.
The teachers' group, led by the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, has scheduled meetings in 14 cities starting next week to discuss legislation that would raise such contributions 2.5 percent over five years.
"We will go public and start a war no one wants to fight," said John Brandt, executive director of the Ohio School Boards Association.
Teachers now contribute 10 percent of their salaries into the state's second-largest public retirement system. Employers such as school boards and colleges contribute 14 percent.
Brandt said increases are unnecessary. But officials from the retirement system say its 115,000 retirees have had to shoulder more of their health care costs, which have increased by about 10 percent a year since 2000. The system's 213,000 active members aren't prepared for the costs they'll face upon retirement, either, spokeswoman Laura Ecklar said.
Most of the state's retirement systems are contributing the maximum amount to retirees.
The coalition will meet with teachers through Nov. 17. It will go forward with a legislative proposal only if it has strong support, Ecklar said.
10/19/05
Nancy Hamant's take:
Radical words from Mr. Brandt about the Health Care Advocates proposal. This reflects the sad state of Ohio funding for schools. It is too bad that Mr. Brandt thinks it is appropriate to attack elderly and retired educators on fixed incomes, when the real enemy is the Legislature who has reduced Ohio's schools to dogs fighting over the last scrap of food and bone.
Nancy B. Hamant
Fuzzy math at STRS? Where's the REST of the picture??
Well, looks like the WAR has begun -- OSBA vs. retirees
From John Curry
To Laura Ecklar, STRS
10/19/2005
Laura, it's nice to see that you finally admit that active teachers "aren't prepared for the costs they'll face upon retirement." (see the article below)
Why has STRS waited so long to tell the troops the truth? While we're talking about the truth, let's check out another statement attributed to STRS in the same press release: " But officials from the retirement system say its 115,000 retirees have had to shoulder more of their health care costs, which have increased by about 10 percent a year since 2000."
Let's do a little math here, Laura. I retired in June of 2000. Right now, I'm looking at my first STRS retirement check stub. It says $61 for retiree (monthly) and $94 for spouse(monthly) for this retiree's total health care premium of $155
Now, 2005, the same monthly premiums are (for the same Aetna 80/20 plan with higher deductables than in the year 2000) $170 for retiree and $506 for retiree's spouse for a monthly total of $676!
Lets's see: $155 for the year 2000 to $676 for the year 2005. My calculator says that the increase since I've been retired amounts to 336% in six years. This news release says, and I quote, "..retirees have had to shoulder more of their health care costs, which have increased by about 10 percent a year since 2000." !!!
Is someone at STRS using "fuzzy math?"
I know that you are just the spokesperson for STRS, but please don't forget about the thousands of retirees who are and will be insuring their spouses. The public deserves to know the total picture.
John Curry, a Proud CORE member
Posted on Wed, Oct. 19, 2005
Akron Beacon Journal
School boards girding for fight from teachers over benefits
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - School boards are promising to defeat a coalition of teachers' unions and pension funds that wants to increase contributions from teachers and their employers toward health care benefits for retirees.
The teachers' group, led by the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, has scheduled meetings in 14 cities starting next week to discuss legislation that would raise such contributions 2.5 percent over five years.
"We will go public and start a war no one wants to fight," said John Brandt, executive director of the Ohio School Boards Association.
Teachers now contribute 10 percent of their salaries into the state's second-largest public retirement system. Employers such as school boards and colleges contribute 14 percent.
Brandt said increases are unnecessary. But officials from the retirement system say its 115,000 retirees have had to shoulder more of their health care costs, which have increased by about 10 percent a year since 2000. The system's 213,000 active members aren't prepared for the costs they'll face upon retirement, either, spokeswoman Laura Ecklar said.
Most of the state's retirement systems are contributing the maximum amount to retirees.
The coalition will meet with teachers through Nov. 17. It will go forward with a legislative proposal only if it has strong support, Ecklar said.
From a minister friend/activist for retirees
Thanks for informing area teachers........They are the least vocal of PERS, SERS, and are in many ways the STRS seems out of the main loop...That is why I am glad to see your blog....It is a big step in the right direction........
Ron Hooker
Ron Hooker
From one who has been fighting the battle since long before CORE evolved
Thanks very much for your compliment. Thanks to intelligent people like you who have backed CORE! It's awful that we STRS OH annuitants have to spend so much of our retirement on doing the work that we paid OEA & ORTA to do. Our dues have been wasted on the union officials' high salaries, travel, hotel and meal perks rather than them doing their jobs of monitoring our STRS & seeking fair legislative changes for both actives & retirees. In the electronic age these union leaders cannot hide behind false rhetoric to appease their members. They need to start producing results or their members will seek real leadership elsewhere.
Survival tactics in tough economic times: Toledo Blade
Toledo Blade
October 18, 2005
by Homer Brickey
We're forced to adopt proven survival tactics
Millions of Americans are going through tough economic times right now. Because of setbacks, they are forced to retreat to survival tactics that worked for a long time in the past.
Because of shrinking pensions, rising costs of medical care and insurance, and the fear of outliving their money, many wage-earners are choosing to work longer.
Now, there's a time-tested idea from the past: Until recent decades, "early" retirement was generally not possible. And today it's nearly unthinkable. Are there any folks left who believe they can, or should, retire at 50?
Because of waves of corporate bankruptcies and the onslaught of globalization and outsourcing, there's downward pressure on wages.
The possibilities of recession and further cost-cutting make many jobs even shakier. Many workers are already tightening their belts for a rough ride. Others whose jobs are secure now realize it will be harder to pay down their massive debts - especially in an environment of rising interest rates and tighter money.
All of this means that millions of Americans will be spending less and conserving more. Living within our means was another time-tested idea from the past. It worked for generations. Surely, it will work now.
In fact, some would argue we never should have lost sight of the need to conserve.
Many of us grew up in regions going through hard times - areas that were scarred by the Great Depression. Many recall the sacrifices, the material shortages, and rationing in World War II. Others may remember painfully the economic devastation of strikes, layoffs, corporate takeovers, and downsizing in recent decades.
Many of us who lived in less frenzied, less prosperous, and less wasteful eras also recall the mantra: "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." Those would be harsh words today, but a bit of frugality won't hurt us.
On top of all this, inflation is rearing its ugly head again. High energy prices are beginning to drive up the cost of just about everything, including transportation, utilities, and a growing list of goods and services.
All the more reason to save more, conserve more, especially if high energy costs become a permanent part of the equation.
Self-reliance was another great American idea from generations ago. But will we ever be able to fashion a national energy policy that will get us back to self-sufficiency in that costly sector? Can we save our home-grown automotive industry? Can our markets survive without massive foreign investment?
The future is clouded, perhaps even dark. But the path there seems clear enough: Work longer. Save more. Consume less. Vote.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051018/COLUMNIST02/510180354/-1/COLUMNIST
Homer Brickey is The Blade's senior business writer.
» E-mail him at homerbrickey@theblade.com
» Read more Homer Brickey columns at www.toledoblade.com/brickey
October 18, 2005
by Homer Brickey
We're forced to adopt proven survival tactics
Millions of Americans are going through tough economic times right now. Because of setbacks, they are forced to retreat to survival tactics that worked for a long time in the past.
Because of shrinking pensions, rising costs of medical care and insurance, and the fear of outliving their money, many wage-earners are choosing to work longer.
Now, there's a time-tested idea from the past: Until recent decades, "early" retirement was generally not possible. And today it's nearly unthinkable. Are there any folks left who believe they can, or should, retire at 50?
Because of waves of corporate bankruptcies and the onslaught of globalization and outsourcing, there's downward pressure on wages.
The possibilities of recession and further cost-cutting make many jobs even shakier. Many workers are already tightening their belts for a rough ride. Others whose jobs are secure now realize it will be harder to pay down their massive debts - especially in an environment of rising interest rates and tighter money.
All of this means that millions of Americans will be spending less and conserving more. Living within our means was another time-tested idea from the past. It worked for generations. Surely, it will work now.
In fact, some would argue we never should have lost sight of the need to conserve.
Many of us grew up in regions going through hard times - areas that were scarred by the Great Depression. Many recall the sacrifices, the material shortages, and rationing in World War II. Others may remember painfully the economic devastation of strikes, layoffs, corporate takeovers, and downsizing in recent decades.
Many of us who lived in less frenzied, less prosperous, and less wasteful eras also recall the mantra: "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." Those would be harsh words today, but a bit of frugality won't hurt us.
On top of all this, inflation is rearing its ugly head again. High energy prices are beginning to drive up the cost of just about everything, including transportation, utilities, and a growing list of goods and services.
All the more reason to save more, conserve more, especially if high energy costs become a permanent part of the equation.
Self-reliance was another great American idea from generations ago. But will we ever be able to fashion a national energy policy that will get us back to self-sufficiency in that costly sector? Can we save our home-grown automotive industry? Can our markets survive without massive foreign investment?
The future is clouded, perhaps even dark. But the path there seems clear enough: Work longer. Save more. Consume less. Vote.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051018/COLUMNIST02/510180354/-1/COLUMNIST
Homer Brickey is The Blade's senior business writer.
» E-mail him at homerbrickey@theblade.com
» Read more Homer Brickey columns at www.toledoblade.com/brickey
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The barn door is open and the cows are gone: John Curry sounds off
We at CORE have been saying that increases in both employer and employee contributions have been needed for years. Finally, the HCA (Health Care Advocates, chaired by the OEA) is going to break the news to the active teachers!! We at CORE broke the "news" about outrageous monthly HC premiums (especially compared to the other 4 state pension systems) to STRS retirees and active teachers years ago!
Many active teachers were too busy teaching or chose to ignore the warning documents that CORE distributed about the ungodly high rates charged by STRS and the dropping of all subsidies for the retirees' spouses (spousal trashing). Now, these actives will get the "bad news" from the very same organization (OEA) who allowed the mismanagement, misspending, and entitlement mentality to exist at STRS when the OEA dominated (5 out of 9 members) the "old" STRS board.
Of course, OEA won't tell their dues payers about that part of the ugly STRS history -- will they? Wonder if they'll tell their members about the ethics violations that Dyer copped a plea to or about the former OEA endorsed STRS board member (Hazel Sidaway) who is currently fighting ethics charges against her? Will the OEA tell their actives about the additional ethics violations that will be coming into the headlines during the weeks and months to come against current and former STRS board members and associates?
It has been said that the newest tactic that is being used by the OEA is to impart the idea to the active teachers that the "new board" is planning to trash the 35 year benefits procedure that was initiated six years ago. This is not and has not been presented to OR discussed by the STRS Board (either the "new" one or the "old" one).
Additionally, the host of OEA coached speakers at the September Board meeting were telling the current board that they wished the current board to *maintain* the current excellent health care program BUT THEY FAILED TO MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE CURRENT HIGHWAY ROBBERY RATES CHARGED FOR THE SPOUSE OF A RETIREE DUE TO DROPPING THE SPOUSAL SUBSIDY!
Were those same OEA endorsed speakers really aware of the current STRS HC monthly premium rates and the STRS rates as compared to the other systems? Either they were and chose to ignore this aspect or they didn't have the slightest idea of what has been going on with their retirement system.
Soon, however, the majority of active teachers will find out the real truth behind the multiple reasons for the failure of STRS to offer a competitive HC rate schedule as compared to the other Ohio public retirement systems. It wasn't just the stock market dive during the early 2000's -- OPERS and the other state retirement systems suffered major losses in that VERY SAME MARKET. It was the lack of planning by an OEA majority STRS Board and a lack of political courage by the OEA to apply political pressure on legislators to initiate a bill for significant contribution rate hikes by both teachers and school boards all across the Buckeye STATE when economic times were good.
Well, the times now aren't so good, the barn door has been left open, the cows have left, and we all will be hard pressed to find a state legislator who will have the political courage to introduce a bill calling for a significant rate hike of contributions by BOTH the employer and the employee -- especially since Coingate and the STRS ethics charges that have come to bear and will in the future.
To be realistic, the public isn't in any too good of a mood right now for a "hard sell" concerning additional monies that will be needed to assist a retirement system that hasn't been able to successfully run their own ship. Do I wish to see this happen? NO! Am I being politically realistic? YES!
John, a Proud CORE member
ORC 3307.15 - not just a wish,
IT'S THE LAW!
If a member signs up for Medicare D, does that person have to terminate his/her STRS health care coverage according to STRS? Gary Russell responds
From Shirlee Zerkel
Monday, October 17, 2005
Dear Damon or Gary:
If a member signs up for Medicare D, does that person have to terminate his/her STRS health care coverage according to STRS? Can a member be a part of the STRS health care coverage even if they decide to sign up for a Medicare D program? Your information in the health care package (green sheet) could be a little confusing to some members. You speak of the member terminating the health care coverage to take the Medicare D and what will happen. He/she will not be covered for hospital, etc. Can you please clarify this for me and some other members. Thank you
I hope this helps,
Gary Russell
Director, Member Services
STRS Ohio
Monday, October 17, 2005
Dear Damon or Gary:
If a member signs up for Medicare D, does that person have to terminate his/her STRS health care coverage according to STRS? Can a member be a part of the STRS health care coverage even if they decide to sign up for a Medicare D program? Your information in the health care package (green sheet) could be a little confusing to some members. You speak of the member terminating the health care coverage to take the Medicare D and what will happen. He/she will not be covered for hospital, etc. Can you please clarify this for me and some other members. Thank you
Shirlee Zerkel
From Gary Russell
10/18/05
From Gary Russell
10/18/05
Dear All;
From the various e-mails that have been sent there appears to be some confusion about reentering the STRS Ohio health care plan if you drop our plan. First, the creation of Medicare Part D has not in any way modified the rules for enrolling in the STRS Ohio health care program. A member can enroll with no waiting period if the member is replacing major medical and prescription coverage or during the STRS Ohio open enrollment period. If the member is not replacing coverage or is adding STRS Ohio coverage to existing coverage then there is a six-month wait before the STRS Ohio health care coverage becomes effective.
A person enrolled in an Aetna, Medical Mutual or Aultcare plan who signs up for Medicare Part D does not have to terminate STRS Ohio coverage; however, that person would be paying for duplicate Rx coverage and most likely this wouldn't be a good financial decision unless the person qualifies for extra help due to low income. What we would expect is that if a member finds that a Medicare Part D plan is better then he/she would drop the STRS Ohio coverage and enroll in the Medicare Part D plan and also enroll in a Medicare hospital and medical supplement.
If a person is enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Medicare Plus or Paramount Elite and decides to enroll in a Medicare Part D drug plan, the Kaiser or Paramount hospital/medical and prescription drug benefits will be terminated by Medicare.
If a member drops the STRS Ohio plan to enroll in a Medicare Part D plan and a Medicare hospital and medical supplement and then later decides to come back to the STRS Ohio plan, then the member would have to be dropping the Medicare Part D plan and the supplemental plan in order to enroll in the STRS Ohio plan with no waiting period.
From the various e-mails that have been sent there appears to be some confusion about reentering the STRS Ohio health care plan if you drop our plan. First, the creation of Medicare Part D has not in any way modified the rules for enrolling in the STRS Ohio health care program. A member can enroll with no waiting period if the member is replacing major medical and prescription coverage or during the STRS Ohio open enrollment period. If the member is not replacing coverage or is adding STRS Ohio coverage to existing coverage then there is a six-month wait before the STRS Ohio health care coverage becomes effective.
A person enrolled in an Aetna, Medical Mutual or Aultcare plan who signs up for Medicare Part D does not have to terminate STRS Ohio coverage; however, that person would be paying for duplicate Rx coverage and most likely this wouldn't be a good financial decision unless the person qualifies for extra help due to low income. What we would expect is that if a member finds that a Medicare Part D plan is better then he/she would drop the STRS Ohio coverage and enroll in the Medicare Part D plan and also enroll in a Medicare hospital and medical supplement.
If a person is enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Medicare Plus or Paramount Elite and decides to enroll in a Medicare Part D drug plan, the Kaiser or Paramount hospital/medical and prescription drug benefits will be terminated by Medicare.
If a member drops the STRS Ohio plan to enroll in a Medicare Part D plan and a Medicare hospital and medical supplement and then later decides to come back to the STRS Ohio plan, then the member would have to be dropping the Medicare Part D plan and the supplemental plan in order to enroll in the STRS Ohio plan with no waiting period.
I hope this helps,
Gary Russell
Director, Member Services
STRS Ohio
Robert Hudson Jones: Time for a Compounded Cost of Living Adjustment (CCOLA)
The time has come for a Compounded Cost of Living Adjustment (CCOLA). The Sunday Wall Street Journal reports: "Inflation Surges: U.S. consumer prices rose last month at the fastest pace in more than 25 years, buoyed by surging energy prices. But, it's good news for retirees: They'll get 4.1% in their monthly Social Security checks next year, the largest rise in more than a decade. For the average retiree, it will mean an extra $39 a month." (End Quote)
While this retired teacher does not wish to be in Social Security (SS), what is good for the SS, Congressmen, Senators and federal employees, ought to be good for STRS OH annuitants. It is noted that Nancy Hamant of CORE states that: "42 States provide compounded COLA's for retirees. Ohio is not one of them..."
Funding for the OH retired teacher's HC/Rx and a CCOLA must be found in an increase in the 14% employee contribution. This is the very least that should be expected from those who, by law, expect their teachers to meet stringent OH State certification, 5-yr. college degrees and beyond.
RHJones,
Retired STRS OH teacher, SummitCRTA Leg. CMTE. Mem, CORE Legal CMTE Mem.. Life Mem. of OEA, OEA-R
10/17/05
While this retired teacher does not wish to be in Social Security (SS), what is good for the SS, Congressmen, Senators and federal employees, ought to be good for STRS OH annuitants. It is noted that Nancy Hamant of CORE states that: "42 States provide compounded COLA's for retirees. Ohio is not one of them..."
Funding for the OH retired teacher's HC/Rx and a CCOLA must be found in an increase in the 14% employee contribution. This is the very least that should be expected from those who, by law, expect their teachers to meet stringent OH State certification, 5-yr. college degrees and beyond.
RHJones,
Retired STRS OH teacher, SummitCRTA Leg. CMTE. Mem, CORE Legal CMTE Mem.. Life Mem. of OEA, OEA-R
10/17/05
Are you new to Medicare? Important reminder from STRS
New Medicare Enrollees Should Notify STRS Ohio
From STRS Ohio News, October 2005
If you’re a new Medicare enrollee, it’s important that you notify STRS Ohio by sending a copy of your Medicare card. Once Medicare coverage is verified, STRS Ohio adjusts your health care premiums accordingly. If you fail to send a copy of your or your dependent’s Medicare card to STRS Ohio, your premiums will be substantially higher.
The month you become eligible for Medicare Parts A & B, your STRS Ohio health plan will not be responsible for paying charges normally paid by Medicare. If you are eligible for Medicare Part B, you must enroll in Medicare Part B or benefits will be reduced by the amount Medicare would have paid.
For information about health care benefits covered by Medicare, call STRS Ohio toll-free at 1-888-227-7877.
From STRS Ohio News, October 2005
If you’re a new Medicare enrollee, it’s important that you notify STRS Ohio by sending a copy of your Medicare card. Once Medicare coverage is verified, STRS Ohio adjusts your health care premiums accordingly. If you fail to send a copy of your or your dependent’s Medicare card to STRS Ohio, your premiums will be substantially higher.
The month you become eligible for Medicare Parts A & B, your STRS Ohio health plan will not be responsible for paying charges normally paid by Medicare. If you are eligible for Medicare Part B, you must enroll in Medicare Part B or benefits will be reduced by the amount Medicare would have paid.
For information about health care benefits covered by Medicare, call STRS Ohio toll-free at 1-888-227-7877.
Medicare Part D: STRS answers some questions
Questions Frequently Asked by STRS Ohio Members
From STRS Ohio News, October 2005
Q: I’ve seen television ads about the new Medicare prescription drug coverage (Medicare Part D). Should I sign up for it?
A: Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, prescription drug coverage will be available to all Medicare enrollees for a monthly premium through Medicare Part D prescription drug plans offered by private companies. All plans will provide at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare. Some plans may offer more coverage for higher monthly premiums.
If you’re enrolled in an STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan, you do not need to enroll in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. STRS Ohio has determined that the prescription benefits included in the STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plans are as good as or better than the standard Medicare prescription benefits. However, deciding if you should enroll in Medicare Part D is ultimately a personal decision. If you are considering enrolling in a Medicare prescription drug plan, carefully review the prescription drugs you are currently taking. Compare your current prescription drug plan coverage, including which drugs are covered, with the coverage and costs of the Medicare Part D prescription drug plans offered in your area.
The monthly premium for participating in the Medicare Part D Program may be relatively low. Some figures currently being quoted range from $20 to $35. However, remember that this premium covers prescription drugs only and enrollees are responsible for paying any applicable out-of-pocket costs. Also, keep in mind that your current STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan pays for hospital/medical expenses, in addition to prescription drugs. If you terminate health care coverage under STRS Ohio, you will only have the coverage you qualify for under Medicare Part A and/or Part B unless you purchase a separate supplemental plan.
Q: What if I don’t enroll in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage right away but later decide that I want to — is there a penalty?
A: If you are enrolled in Medicare Part A and/or Part B, you can enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan from Nov. 15, 2005, through May 15, 2006. If you participate in an STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan and you do not enroll in Medicare Part D during this initial enrollment period, you can enroll later without penalty. You will not be penalized because you have existing prescription coverage through your STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan that is comparable to the standard Medicare prescription coverage. STRS Ohio will provide Medicare enrollees with a Certificate of Creditable Coverage in their open-enrollment materials that will enable them to enroll in Medicare Part D without penalty in the future. After the initial enrollment period, you will have an opportunity to enroll in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan each year from Nov. 15 through Dec. 31.
More Medicare Part D information will be included in the health care open-enrollment packets mailed to STRS Ohio Health Care Program participants this October.
From STRS Ohio News, October 2005
Q: I’ve seen television ads about the new Medicare prescription drug coverage (Medicare Part D). Should I sign up for it?
A: Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, prescription drug coverage will be available to all Medicare enrollees for a monthly premium through Medicare Part D prescription drug plans offered by private companies. All plans will provide at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare. Some plans may offer more coverage for higher monthly premiums.
If you’re enrolled in an STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan, you do not need to enroll in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. STRS Ohio has determined that the prescription benefits included in the STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plans are as good as or better than the standard Medicare prescription benefits. However, deciding if you should enroll in Medicare Part D is ultimately a personal decision. If you are considering enrolling in a Medicare prescription drug plan, carefully review the prescription drugs you are currently taking. Compare your current prescription drug plan coverage, including which drugs are covered, with the coverage and costs of the Medicare Part D prescription drug plans offered in your area.
The monthly premium for participating in the Medicare Part D Program may be relatively low. Some figures currently being quoted range from $20 to $35. However, remember that this premium covers prescription drugs only and enrollees are responsible for paying any applicable out-of-pocket costs. Also, keep in mind that your current STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan pays for hospital/medical expenses, in addition to prescription drugs. If you terminate health care coverage under STRS Ohio, you will only have the coverage you qualify for under Medicare Part A and/or Part B unless you purchase a separate supplemental plan.
Q: What if I don’t enroll in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage right away but later decide that I want to — is there a penalty?
A: If you are enrolled in Medicare Part A and/or Part B, you can enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan from Nov. 15, 2005, through May 15, 2006. If you participate in an STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan and you do not enroll in Medicare Part D during this initial enrollment period, you can enroll later without penalty. You will not be penalized because you have existing prescription coverage through your STRS Ohio-sponsored health care plan that is comparable to the standard Medicare prescription coverage. STRS Ohio will provide Medicare enrollees with a Certificate of Creditable Coverage in their open-enrollment materials that will enable them to enroll in Medicare Part D without penalty in the future. After the initial enrollment period, you will have an opportunity to enroll in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan each year from Nov. 15 through Dec. 31.
More Medicare Part D information will be included in the health care open-enrollment packets mailed to STRS Ohio Health Care Program participants this October.
Monday, October 17, 2005
More debate on public participation at STRS Board meetings: 10/17/05 e-mails
[E-mail style: you may want to read from bottom up]
From Kathie Bracy:
STRS Board Policies manual, page 35, paragraph 3:
"The period of public participation may be extended by the Board chair."
If something better isn't worked out by Oct. 20, maybe we need to put the pressure on to put THIS policy into effect at ALL Board meetings, if more that 15 speakers sign up. Dr. Brown did it once; he can do it again; and again; and again; and again; and again. That should carry us up to February.
From Molly Janczyk:
Several board members HAVE given their opinion and do feel all grps. need equal opportunity. Read Curry's concern below! We need to know some measure will be instated for Oct. thru Feb. for public speak.
SUGGESTION: FALL RETREAT: speaking: Public: 1 and 1/2 hrs.
1. 30-45 min; speeches with 3-4 slots for each grp. OEA, OFT, ORTA, CORE, INDEP.-concern has no grp. message or flavor but totally indep. such as a personal (affecting only themselves issue)
2. 30-45 min PANEL DISC. Time; LIMITS on ques.; limits on ans. Direct ques. with respect and ans. with direct specifics.
For ex., Dr. Leone, how do you feel as a board member on such and such issue? Leone responds. This would alleviate rumors by all grps. and be part of the public record. It would be more time efficient and productive at meetings as it would address concerns on the spot and more time efficient for next meetings and on indiv. as concerns would actually be addressed and no need for asking over and over and for months and years to come. Ans. would be heard by all grps and not allow for misrepresentation by any grp.
ANYthing not able to be ans. due to actual research needed to be ans. in 30 days.
From John Curry:
My comment -- yes, but when will Dr. Brown discuss this with the Board -- in February?? If so, that's too late. John
From Molly Janczyk:
Thank you, Damon. That is as my attorney tells me as well. THEREFORE: What CAN WE EXPECT ON THURS. 10/20 RE:SLOTS FOR CORE SPEAKERS and for all grps. attending? I appreciate your timely and specific response. Molly J.
From: Damon Asbury:
Molly:
The board itself establishes the duties and responsibilities for its members by way of the board policies adopted annually. You can find the board policy manual on the STRS website at www.strsoh.org/pdfs/board_policy.pdf.
The section detailing the duties of the board chair are found on pages 21-23 of the document.
Dr. Brown does not make decisions for all board members. I am confident that he expects the full board to discuss the issue of public participation and to address the concerns raised by you and others.
Damon
From Molly Janczyk:
Damon, Again I ask you and your legal attorney for the definition of the board 'chair' position. So far anything legal interpretation I have received is: To chair means to preside over or direct a meeting. No one interprets this position as making decisions for all without asking their opinions and majority rule or vote taken on issues. No one tells me this means one individual can take liberty of speaking for all other members of a board or committee. It is obvious from repsonses given that Brown DID NOT consult ANYONE or any number of board members on this and decided himself how it would be.
THAT is not acceptable and not democratic nor in accordance with ORC:3307.15. Acting on behalf of membership would mean discussing this and making a majority rule decision. Again, so far , the majority of responses have not been to proceed with the current policy but that new policy should be discussed in Feb. However, some alteration between then and now seems to be the mentality among the emails read.
I wish to see a LEGAL OPINION ON THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIRMAN of the board and WHERE IT IS LEGALLY WRITTEN THAT THE CHAIR NEED NOT CONSULT WITH ANYONE BUT ARBITRARILY DECIDE AN ISSUE ALONE. Yes, a policy is in place but NEW conditions warrant amendments until formally addressed anew. BOB BROWN DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL AND SHOULD NOT TAKE THAT LIBERTY! IT IS ARROGANT AND PRESUMPTUOUS AND DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. WE ARE MEMBERS AND HAVE A RIGHT TO A LEGAL OPINION FROM STRS! As I said, so far no attorney I have spoken with feels Bob Brown has that latitude nor that he should have responded as though he did have it. Is the law different for STRS?
Damon, this is not a matter of not liking the answer. I expected Bob to talk with board members and come up with a satisfactory response for all based on all their input. I cannot believe any of them feel not allowing proper representation for all grps is not appropriate. In light of OEA's aknowledged all call last month and published statement calling for members to come and speak and get help for their speeches from OEA CENTRAL due to NEW board members, we may have a new development and plans need be in place should it arise. Slots for each group should be assigned. OEA, ORTA, OFT, CORE, INDEPENDENT with a few slots for all. Independent needs be truly independent concerns not aligned with any organizational active or retiree rhetoric. Should many slots be unfilled, dole them out equally to each group.
WE NEED TO KNOW IN ADVANCE SO WE CAN PLAN JUST LIKE OEA WILL FOR WHO WILL SPEAK AND COMBINING POINTS!
OTHERWISE, WE WILL CO-AUTHOR SPEECHES AND GET THE FOLKS LOCALLY WHO CAN GET TO STRS EARLY TO READ SPEECHES! IT IS SILLY TO FORCE THIS ACTION!
FAIR OR FORCE OTHER ACTION! IT IS YOUR DECISION! I feel certain no attorney will agree that Bob Brown had the power to speak for all other board members-esp. those who do not agree with him.
From Kathie Bracy:
STRS Board Policies manual, page 35, paragraph 3:
"The period of public participation may be extended by the Board chair."
If something better isn't worked out by Oct. 20, maybe we need to put the pressure on to put THIS policy into effect at ALL Board meetings, if more that 15 speakers sign up. Dr. Brown did it once; he can do it again; and again; and again; and again; and again. That should carry us up to February.
From Molly Janczyk:
Several board members HAVE given their opinion and do feel all grps. need equal opportunity. Read Curry's concern below! We need to know some measure will be instated for Oct. thru Feb. for public speak.
SUGGESTION: FALL RETREAT: speaking: Public: 1 and 1/2 hrs.
1. 30-45 min; speeches with 3-4 slots for each grp. OEA, OFT, ORTA, CORE, INDEP.-concern has no grp. message or flavor but totally indep. such as a personal (affecting only themselves issue)
2. 30-45 min PANEL DISC. Time; LIMITS on ques.; limits on ans. Direct ques. with respect and ans. with direct specifics.
For ex., Dr. Leone, how do you feel as a board member on such and such issue? Leone responds. This would alleviate rumors by all grps. and be part of the public record. It would be more time efficient and productive at meetings as it would address concerns on the spot and more time efficient for next meetings and on indiv. as concerns would actually be addressed and no need for asking over and over and for months and years to come. Ans. would be heard by all grps and not allow for misrepresentation by any grp.
ANYthing not able to be ans. due to actual research needed to be ans. in 30 days.
From John Curry:
My comment -- yes, but when will Dr. Brown discuss this with the Board -- in February?? If so, that's too late. John
From Molly Janczyk:
Thank you, Damon. That is as my attorney tells me as well. THEREFORE: What CAN WE EXPECT ON THURS. 10/20 RE:SLOTS FOR CORE SPEAKERS and for all grps. attending? I appreciate your timely and specific response. Molly J.
From: Damon Asbury:
Molly:
The board itself establishes the duties and responsibilities for its members by way of the board policies adopted annually. You can find the board policy manual on the STRS website at www.strsoh.org/pdfs/board_policy.pdf.
The section detailing the duties of the board chair are found on pages 21-23 of the document.
Dr. Brown does not make decisions for all board members. I am confident that he expects the full board to discuss the issue of public participation and to address the concerns raised by you and others.
Damon
From Molly Janczyk:
Damon, Again I ask you and your legal attorney for the definition of the board 'chair' position. So far anything legal interpretation I have received is: To chair means to preside over or direct a meeting. No one interprets this position as making decisions for all without asking their opinions and majority rule or vote taken on issues. No one tells me this means one individual can take liberty of speaking for all other members of a board or committee. It is obvious from repsonses given that Brown DID NOT consult ANYONE or any number of board members on this and decided himself how it would be.
THAT is not acceptable and not democratic nor in accordance with ORC:3307.15. Acting on behalf of membership would mean discussing this and making a majority rule decision. Again, so far , the majority of responses have not been to proceed with the current policy but that new policy should be discussed in Feb. However, some alteration between then and now seems to be the mentality among the emails read.
I wish to see a LEGAL OPINION ON THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIRMAN of the board and WHERE IT IS LEGALLY WRITTEN THAT THE CHAIR NEED NOT CONSULT WITH ANYONE BUT ARBITRARILY DECIDE AN ISSUE ALONE. Yes, a policy is in place but NEW conditions warrant amendments until formally addressed anew. BOB BROWN DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL AND SHOULD NOT TAKE THAT LIBERTY! IT IS ARROGANT AND PRESUMPTUOUS AND DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. WE ARE MEMBERS AND HAVE A RIGHT TO A LEGAL OPINION FROM STRS! As I said, so far no attorney I have spoken with feels Bob Brown has that latitude nor that he should have responded as though he did have it. Is the law different for STRS?
Damon, this is not a matter of not liking the answer. I expected Bob to talk with board members and come up with a satisfactory response for all based on all their input. I cannot believe any of them feel not allowing proper representation for all grps is not appropriate. In light of OEA's aknowledged all call last month and published statement calling for members to come and speak and get help for their speeches from OEA CENTRAL due to NEW board members, we may have a new development and plans need be in place should it arise. Slots for each group should be assigned. OEA, ORTA, OFT, CORE, INDEPENDENT with a few slots for all. Independent needs be truly independent concerns not aligned with any organizational active or retiree rhetoric. Should many slots be unfilled, dole them out equally to each group.
WE NEED TO KNOW IN ADVANCE SO WE CAN PLAN JUST LIKE OEA WILL FOR WHO WILL SPEAK AND COMBINING POINTS!
OTHERWISE, WE WILL CO-AUTHOR SPEECHES AND GET THE FOLKS LOCALLY WHO CAN GET TO STRS EARLY TO READ SPEECHES! IT IS SILLY TO FORCE THIS ACTION!
FAIR OR FORCE OTHER ACTION! IT IS YOUR DECISION! I feel certain no attorney will agree that Bob Brown had the power to speak for all other board members-esp. those who do not agree with him.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Who may attend CORE meetings? You, you and YOU!
ALL Educators (contributors and beneficiaries of STRS Ohio), Active and Retired, are welcome members of CORE unless you decide you wish not to be, and regardless of whether you have made a financial contribution (such as the initial $5.00 "dues" many people contribute).
Some members have contributed to the CORE Legal Fund, which helps to pay for attorney consultations, mailings, copies, election flyers, etc., that individual members pay out of their personal expenses.
Many CORE members are also members of OEA, ORTA, OFT, OEA-R, etc.
CORE: Concerned Ohio Retired (current AND future) Educators who are concerned with their future or current retirement benefits with STRS
WE WELCOME ALL! Some parts of meetings are closed to those who actively oppose CORE, such as some ORTA and OEA Central individuals who may not wish to work collectively.
Some members have contributed to the CORE Legal Fund, which helps to pay for attorney consultations, mailings, copies, election flyers, etc., that individual members pay out of their personal expenses.
Many CORE members are also members of OEA, ORTA, OFT, OEA-R, etc.
CORE: Concerned Ohio Retired (current AND future) Educators who are concerned with their future or current retirement benefits with STRS
WE WELCOME ALL! Some parts of meetings are closed to those who actively oppose CORE, such as some ORTA and OEA Central individuals who may not wish to work collectively.
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Look before you leap! (The new Medicare drug benefit)
The Plain Dealer
Compare employer's coverage with Medicare offerings
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Editor's note: This is the third in a series of articles on Medicare's new drug benefit that will appear Sundays in this space. The first two articles, and others on Medicare, are available at www.cleveland.com/medicare.
When Congress was debating whether to add a drug benefit to Medicare two years ago, some members worried that it could backfire on seniors who have employer-sponsored health coverage.
Cash-strapped employers could decide to save money by canceling drug coverage and telling retirees to join a less generous Medicare drug plan.
To prevent that from happening, Congress added a special enticement to the new benefit just for employers: for each retiree they continue to cover, the government would pay for 28 percent of the cost, up to $1,330 a year.
About $87 billion is available for employers who offer drug coverage that is at least as good as the Medicare benefit. To be eligible for the subsidy, employers must also spend at least as much as Medicare pays for its benefit. Even those conditions don't stop employers from reducing their benefit to match Medicare's.
Now the roughly 11 million retirees over 65 who depend on employer-sponsored drug coverage are finding out if their old bosses will go for the deal.
And even if your employer-sponsored coverage doesn't change, you may want some thing different. After looking over the new Medicare plans, you may find one better suits your needs.
But this is Medicare, so how, whether and when to switch is not exactly crystal clear.
Will my former employer continue to offer drug coverage?
More than 9,000 employers and unions that offer retiree drug coverage nationwide have applied for the subsidy, says David Repko, a consultant at the Cleveland office of Towers, Perrin, an employer benefits consulting firm. The deadline is Oct. 31.
The Medicare law requires employers to tell retirees if their coverage is on average as good as the basic Medicare drug coverage. That's called "creditable coverage" and you must be told whether you have it or not by Nov. 15, which also happens to be when enrollment begins for the Medicare drug plans.
Save that letter with your most precious keepsakes. It's not just bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.
I'll keep my employer coverage for now, but can I join a Medicare plan later if my situation changes?
Yes, but you may have to pay a late penalty - forever. If you don't have "creditable coverage" and decide to switch from your employer-sponsored drug coverage to a better Medicare drug plan after the enrollment ends May 15, you will pay an extra 1 percent more in monthly premiums for each month you delayed signing up.
Since the next opportunity for enrollment is not until Nov. 15, 2006 - another six months - your monthly premium will be an extra 6 percent. If you wait a year beyond that, you will pay an extra 18 percent.
But if your employer dumps you, there's no penalty if you choose a Medicare plan within 63 days. There also is no penalty if you switch from one plan to another of at least equal value, that is, if your plan is deemed "creditable."
What if a Medicare drug plan is clearly better than my employer coverage?
If you pay a significant share of your retiree coverage, you may get a better deal with Medicare if you qualify for the financial assistance that's available for beneficiaries with limited income and assets.
But if you leave your employer's plan, most do not allow you to return.
"It's a one-way street," says Repko.
To reach this Plain Dealer columnist:
sjaffe@plaind.com, 216-999-4822
Something needs to change: rehirees' insurance still paid by STRS
http://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/story/1015202005_new03_retired.asp
"Superintendents agree that financial reasons are the motivation for hiring retired teachers. In fact, Narcisi said that action can save about $45,000 per year. Of that amount, $15,000 in savings comes from the health insurance being provided by the teacher's retirement plan."
Retired teachers head back to classroom
By APRIL HENRY, For The Times Leader
Although it is common for Ohio teachers to retire and then return to the classroom at a full-time status, West Virginia educators do not have the same option.
Shadyside Local School District Superintendent Jerry Narcisi said Ohio's laws allow for teachers to retire and return to full-time work after 60 days with no loss of benefits. Ohio Department of Education spokesman J.C. Benton confirmed that hiring retirees is legal.
Each Ohio school district, through its contract with the teachers' union, must set its own requirements when dealing with the specifics of retiring and returning to full-time work, Narcisi added.
For example, St. Clairsville-Richland City School District Treasurer Trevor Gummere said teachers can retire and receive a payment of $10,000 during the January after the last day of teaching. They then can return for one year at their previous full-time salary if the district decides to rehire, he explained.
"Any year after that, they come back as master's 10 (status)," Gummere added. "That's the pay scale position they stay at. They don't accrue seniority. They stay there until the district or the teacher makes a decision to discontinue employment."
Superintendents agree that financial reasons are the motivation for hiring retired teachers. In fact, Narcisi said that action can save about $45,000 per year. Of that amount, $15,000 in savings comes from the health insurance being provided by the teacher's retirement plan.
"It has the potential to save money because when you're hiring a person back who's retired, you normally hire them on a lower level of the pay scale," Narcisi explained. "There's a good chance you won't pay their insurance benefits. That would be huge savings."
Bridgeport Exempted Village School District Superintendent Mark Matz added that teachers in his district can reapply and teach for an unlimited amount of years as long as both parties still agree to the employment.
"Myself and the board (of education) have the final say on who, if any, gets hired back," he noted. "The problem is you don't want to lose good teachers. If you can entice them to come back and stay, they can draw full retirement, and there's a set number of years of experience that we pay for."
Despite this so-called "double dipping," Gummere said hiring retired teachers actually saves taxpayers money.
"Even if they were to retire and not come back, we still have to hire a teacher," he explained. "We don't know what status that teacher will have. Anyone who works in a school and is getting retirement, that comes off our state foundation. Essentially, the taxpayer's getting a cost savings."
Gummere also pointed out that new teachers often require training, which costs the district money as well.
"People are assets," he added. "You have to work with new teachers more than a retiree who knows what to do. We will hire a retired teacher because it requires less time. It is kind of a catch-22. You save money on salary (when hiring a new teacher), but how much do you really save because you have many other expenses?"
Ultimately, Narcisi and Matz concurred that they hire teachers on a case-by-case basis.
"The obvious is that if a teacher who retired was an absolutely top-notch, excellent teacher, I don't think a school district would mind one bit to hire that teacher back," Narcisi said. "You've got a known quantity in terms of that excellent teacher. On the other hand, if the teacher who retired was marginal, I think a school district should look elsewhere.
"When it comes to upper level math and science teachers, you can't find them walking around," he added. "Those are shortage areas. Therefore, you would probably hire a retired teacher in that area to come back and work."
Some young teachers who are qualified and are looking for full-time work, none of whom wished to provide a name, become frustrated when districts hire retired teachers.
"From my standpoint, there's nothing I can say to a young teacher out of college that will make them feel good about it," Matz noted. "If I can keep our top teachers, I'm going to do that and still cut my costs. We have to be financially sound. Normally, a school district will hire young people who have little or no experience. Hiring retirees gets two birds with one stone."
Meanwhile, West Virginia educators do not have the option of retiring and returning to the classroom on a full-time basis, according to Kathy Finsley, human resources director and general counsel for Ohio County Schools.
The West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board Web site states, "Any retiree, other than as a college teacher, who accepts employment for a relatively short period (no more than 120 days during the school year) is considered to be temporary and shall continue to receive his or her normal monthly benefits."
"They are allowed to substitute for a certain number of days, 120 days," Finsley said. "If they're in a critical shortage area, there is a policy that they are allowed to go as many as 140 days. They do not get hired back in full-time jobs. There are more limitations in West Virginia than in Ohio.
"Our retirees are not subbing more than 75-80 days," Finsley added. "Nobody is coming back here as a full-time person. West Virginia law doesn't allow it. We may have a situation where someone is retiring on a semester break, and we will hire a retiree for the rest of the year."
Currently, Ohio County Schools has two teachers who are employed as long-term substitutes until another certified teacher can be hired. This is the case with retired mathematics teacher Larry Koehrsen, who is employed as a long-term substitute at Wheeling Middle School.
"I taught in Ohio County for 35 years at Wheeling Junior High and Wheeling Middle," Koehrsen shared. "Now, I've been teaching kids in South Wheeling, Bethlehem and Mozart for 37 years. After I was here for a couple weeks (at the beginning of the school year), the administration extended it until January. They're hoping to find someone who graduates in December.
"I'm in my old classroom at the same school," he continued. "I still like the kids. Being around the kids keeps you feeling young. A teacher never really stops teaching."
"Superintendents agree that financial reasons are the motivation for hiring retired teachers. In fact, Narcisi said that action can save about $45,000 per year. Of that amount, $15,000 in savings comes from the health insurance being provided by the teacher's retirement plan."
Retired teachers head back to classroom
By APRIL HENRY, For The Times Leader
Although it is common for Ohio teachers to retire and then return to the classroom at a full-time status, West Virginia educators do not have the same option.
Shadyside Local School District Superintendent Jerry Narcisi said Ohio's laws allow for teachers to retire and return to full-time work after 60 days with no loss of benefits. Ohio Department of Education spokesman J.C. Benton confirmed that hiring retirees is legal.
Each Ohio school district, through its contract with the teachers' union, must set its own requirements when dealing with the specifics of retiring and returning to full-time work, Narcisi added.
For example, St. Clairsville-Richland City School District Treasurer Trevor Gummere said teachers can retire and receive a payment of $10,000 during the January after the last day of teaching. They then can return for one year at their previous full-time salary if the district decides to rehire, he explained.
"Any year after that, they come back as master's 10 (status)," Gummere added. "That's the pay scale position they stay at. They don't accrue seniority. They stay there until the district or the teacher makes a decision to discontinue employment."
Superintendents agree that financial reasons are the motivation for hiring retired teachers. In fact, Narcisi said that action can save about $45,000 per year. Of that amount, $15,000 in savings comes from the health insurance being provided by the teacher's retirement plan.
"It has the potential to save money because when you're hiring a person back who's retired, you normally hire them on a lower level of the pay scale," Narcisi explained. "There's a good chance you won't pay their insurance benefits. That would be huge savings."
Bridgeport Exempted Village School District Superintendent Mark Matz added that teachers in his district can reapply and teach for an unlimited amount of years as long as both parties still agree to the employment.
"Myself and the board (of education) have the final say on who, if any, gets hired back," he noted. "The problem is you don't want to lose good teachers. If you can entice them to come back and stay, they can draw full retirement, and there's a set number of years of experience that we pay for."
Despite this so-called "double dipping," Gummere said hiring retired teachers actually saves taxpayers money.
"Even if they were to retire and not come back, we still have to hire a teacher," he explained. "We don't know what status that teacher will have. Anyone who works in a school and is getting retirement, that comes off our state foundation. Essentially, the taxpayer's getting a cost savings."
Gummere also pointed out that new teachers often require training, which costs the district money as well.
"People are assets," he added. "You have to work with new teachers more than a retiree who knows what to do. We will hire a retired teacher because it requires less time. It is kind of a catch-22. You save money on salary (when hiring a new teacher), but how much do you really save because you have many other expenses?"
Ultimately, Narcisi and Matz concurred that they hire teachers on a case-by-case basis.
"The obvious is that if a teacher who retired was an absolutely top-notch, excellent teacher, I don't think a school district would mind one bit to hire that teacher back," Narcisi said. "You've got a known quantity in terms of that excellent teacher. On the other hand, if the teacher who retired was marginal, I think a school district should look elsewhere.
"When it comes to upper level math and science teachers, you can't find them walking around," he added. "Those are shortage areas. Therefore, you would probably hire a retired teacher in that area to come back and work."
Some young teachers who are qualified and are looking for full-time work, none of whom wished to provide a name, become frustrated when districts hire retired teachers.
"From my standpoint, there's nothing I can say to a young teacher out of college that will make them feel good about it," Matz noted. "If I can keep our top teachers, I'm going to do that and still cut my costs. We have to be financially sound. Normally, a school district will hire young people who have little or no experience. Hiring retirees gets two birds with one stone."
Meanwhile, West Virginia educators do not have the option of retiring and returning to the classroom on a full-time basis, according to Kathy Finsley, human resources director and general counsel for Ohio County Schools.
The West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board Web site states, "Any retiree, other than as a college teacher, who accepts employment for a relatively short period (no more than 120 days during the school year) is considered to be temporary and shall continue to receive his or her normal monthly benefits."
"They are allowed to substitute for a certain number of days, 120 days," Finsley said. "If they're in a critical shortage area, there is a policy that they are allowed to go as many as 140 days. They do not get hired back in full-time jobs. There are more limitations in West Virginia than in Ohio.
"Our retirees are not subbing more than 75-80 days," Finsley added. "Nobody is coming back here as a full-time person. West Virginia law doesn't allow it. We may have a situation where someone is retiring on a semester break, and we will hire a retiree for the rest of the year."
Currently, Ohio County Schools has two teachers who are employed as long-term substitutes until another certified teacher can be hired. This is the case with retired mathematics teacher Larry Koehrsen, who is employed as a long-term substitute at Wheeling Middle School.
"I taught in Ohio County for 35 years at Wheeling Junior High and Wheeling Middle," Koehrsen shared. "Now, I've been teaching kids in South Wheeling, Bethlehem and Mozart for 37 years. After I was here for a couple weeks (at the beginning of the school year), the administration extended it until January. They're hoping to find someone who graduates in December.
"I'm in my old classroom at the same school," he continued. "I still like the kids. Being around the kids keeps you feeling young. A teacher never really stops teaching."
CORE annual rally/meeting Oct. 20, 2005, 11:45 a.m. at STRS
From Molly Janczyk, 10/16/05:
The CORE ANNUAL MEETING was postponed in Sept. due to a very full agenda with the swearing in ceremonies and many more speakers than usual. There was a special HC meeting following the speakers and Tom Curtis who was running the agenda for the CORE Annual Meeting felt it more important to attend a Special HC Meeting presentation for a steady stream of revenue for the HC Stabilization Fund.
THEREFORE, TOM CURTIS WILL BE CHAIRMAN OF THE OCT 20, 2005 CORE ANNUAL MEETING with important business:
1. MIKE BILLIRAKIS will address HC issues and ans. ques.
2. EXPLANATIONS OF NEW CORE Committees:
▪ Legislative
▪ HC
▪ Investment
▪ Election 2006
▪ 3 Min. Presentation
3. Ques. and ans.
CORE will hold its annual rally/meeting on Oct. 20, 2005 on the second floor of STRS (275 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43215) in the Sublett Rm. This meeting is a yearly opportunity for all reprsentatives from around the state to meet for determining the future of CORE. All decisions for CORE are made at these meetings by vote following majority rule. The Advisory Committee then carries out the decisions as no leaders are in place and all voices are heard in CORE. The Sublett Rm. is adjacent to the cafeteria. If you wish lunch, please go tho the cafeteria approx. 11:30 so we can begin promptly as we have a full agenda.
Also, we are ever growing and wish to register new members so you can receive info and forward it to others if you wish. We are always trying to enlarge our base to include all counties so every educator is aware of all sides of issues.
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND AND JOIN YOUR FRIENDS AND FELLOW EDUCATORS ON 10/20/05! If you cannot personally attend, please pass this on to others who can.
In 2 years:
● The former Exec. Direc. has been replaced
● 5 STRS board members, all of whom have been or most likely will be charged with ethics vioations have been replaced.
● SB133 which brought pension reform is in place and those board members who overspent can never return to the STRS board or be appointed to it. Language is in place to remove any board member who overspends in the future.
● 3 investment appointees have been added to the board for their expertise
●Many reductions and eliminations of overspending have been put into effect.The Ohio Ethics Commission (OEC) is investigating all areas of STRS for possible violations.
We are volunteers. We always need more help!
Please join us.
Thank you.
Think before you switch health care plans: advice from a sage, Paul Boyer
To all CORE members and other STRS retirees:
I would like to give you my personal opinion on selecting your H C plan for 2006.
I want to caution you very sincerely to be very sure you are doing the right thing in changing to a different plan from that which you have been in. One of our Allen county members sent me an email that he was going to leave the Aetna plan for another and I replied to him to be sure he knew what he was doing. He replied that after studying it more thoroughly, he and his wife decided that they were better off in their current Aetna plan that what they were looking at to change.
My wife and I have been retired for 20 years and we have been in the Aetna Plus Plan all those years. We have been very satisfied with it and have never changed. It is our personal opinion that it is the best for us.
Again, these are my personal opinions, based upon our experience and the years that I have spent working with CORE and attending the various committee and board meetings of STRS. I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone.
I simply say to you as I did our local member, Before you change your plan, make very sure that you know what you are doing. If you have been satisfied with your current plan, stick with it. In that case you do not need to anything. As long as you do not contact STRS, you will remain in the same plan you are now in.
I am so happy for what STRS has done for next year with our prescription costs - lowering the generic co-pay and keeping the other tier prices the same as this year. Thank you, STRS Board.
End of communication.
Paul Boyer,
"CORE" of the CORE
I would like to give you my personal opinion on selecting your H C plan for 2006.
I want to caution you very sincerely to be very sure you are doing the right thing in changing to a different plan from that which you have been in. One of our Allen county members sent me an email that he was going to leave the Aetna plan for another and I replied to him to be sure he knew what he was doing. He replied that after studying it more thoroughly, he and his wife decided that they were better off in their current Aetna plan that what they were looking at to change.
My wife and I have been retired for 20 years and we have been in the Aetna Plus Plan all those years. We have been very satisfied with it and have never changed. It is our personal opinion that it is the best for us.
Again, these are my personal opinions, based upon our experience and the years that I have spent working with CORE and attending the various committee and board meetings of STRS. I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone.
I simply say to you as I did our local member, Before you change your plan, make very sure that you know what you are doing. If you have been satisfied with your current plan, stick with it. In that case you do not need to anything. As long as you do not contact STRS, you will remain in the same plan you are now in.
I am so happy for what STRS has done for next year with our prescription costs - lowering the generic co-pay and keeping the other tier prices the same as this year. Thank you, STRS Board.
End of communication.
Paul Boyer,
"CORE" of the CORE
Accessing the online presentation for the STRS Health Care Discussion meetings
It has been called to my attention that the link for accessing the online presentation for the STRS Health Care Discussion meetings has not been working. I checked it out on the STRS website, and a pop-up gave the following message (with a working link):
Health Care Discussion Meetings Online Presentation
The online presentation for the Health Care Discussion meetings is still being developed. To be notified when the presentation is available, click the link below to send an e-mail to the Webmaster.
Notify me when the online presentation is available.
KB
Health Care Discussion Meetings Online Presentation
The online presentation for the Health Care Discussion meetings is still being developed. To be notified when the presentation is available, click the link below to send an e-mail to the Webmaster.
Notify me when the online presentation is available.
KB
Saturday, October 15, 2005
OFT and a new plan for healthcare for Ohio teachers and others
"In addition to the Ohio AFL-CIO, sponsoring unions in Ohio include the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Association of Public School Employees/AFSCME, the Ohio Nurses Association, Communications Workers of America, Operating Engineers, Local 20, and the Ohio AFL-CIO. Several other unions are now considering becoming sponsors. Sponsoring unions have a seat on the plan’s board of trustees. OFT President Tom Mooney became the board’s first chairman in May. Officers of the Trust will rotate annually."
The Ohio Health Care Trust offers medical, prescription drug, dental and vision coverage, as well as term life and disability insurance. The Trust can administer 401(k) and 403 (b) tax-deferred annuity plans, along with Section 125 “cafeteria” plans. Employers and unions can purchase any or all of these benefit programs. But, only bargaining unions represented by unions covered by the Trust and other employees working for the same employer are eligible.
Plans Can Reduce Costs
The Trust can offer teachers, school employees, higher education faculty and staff, and other public employees the same coverage they enjoy now at less cost, in most cases. Or, the Trust can make expanded benefits affordable. The union-sponsored plan can also provide coverage to private sector employees.
How does the Trust hold down costs? First, it is a non-profit entity. Administrative costs are kept to a minimum, and no profits are retained. Second, the Trust negotiates the steepest discounts available with pharmacy benefit managers, hospitals and physician groups. All costs, discounts and contracts are transparent. Nothing is hidden from the employers or the unions seeking coverage. Commercial health insurance and prescription benefit managers too often do not reveal the discounts they negotiate with drug companies and health care providers, so their customers don’t know if they are getting the best available price.
In Ohio, the union-sponsored plan took another innovative step to reduce administrative costs and corporate profits that add to health care costs. After soliciting and examining bids, the Ohio Health Care Trust contracted directly with a provider network, Emerald Health, bypassing the for-profit health insurance companies altogether. Emerald has an extensive network of hospitals, doctors and other health care providers throughout the state, and has negotiated very competitive discounts with them.
Emerald has partnered with a national network, Health EOS, so that employees and family members covered by the Trust have access to care while traveling out of state or attending college.
For prescription drug coverage, the Trust participates in a larger AFL-CIO purchasing coalition that has negotiated one of the lowest cost plans in the country, administered by Caremark.
And, medical benefits offered by the Trust include a state-of-the-art program that monitors the quality of medical care to ensure that patients are getting the treatment they need and that care is coordinated among various doctors treating the same patient. Health care experts agree that timely and appropriate medical care is the most effective way to reduce health care costs in the long run.
Finally, employers and unions that contract with the Trust for benefits do not need to use brokers who add their commission to health insurance premiums.
In addition to the Ohio AFL-CIO, sponsoring unions in Ohio include the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Association of Public School Employees/AFSCME, the Ohio Nurses Association, Communications Workers of America, Operating Engineers, Local 20, and the Ohio AFL-CIO. Several other unions are now considering becoming sponsors. Sponsoring unions have a seat on the plan’s board of trustees. OFT President Tom Mooney became the board’s first chairman in May. Officers of the Trust will rotate annually.
Contact Information
If your school district, college or agency has health care coverage, or other insurance programs or benefits that are up for renewal, your local union may want to get more information about benefits and services offered by the Ohio Health Care Trust. Contact Bob McCollins, executive director of marketing and field services for the Trust, at 1-800-968-9682 ext. 383, 614-537-9741 cell or bmccollins@mebs.com.
Employers and unions should, however, seek competitive bids for all employee benefits periodically and should retain expert consultants to review their coverage and costs and assist them in preparing RFPs and analyzing the bids they receive. But, such consultants should be paid fixed fees for their services, not a percentage of premiums.
Article Courtesy of the Ohio Federation of Teacher, AFT, AFL-CIO
Union-Sponsored Health Care Plan Open for Business
The Ohio Health Care Trust, offering comprehensive union-sponsored employee benefits, is open for business. Ohio labor unions, under the auspices of the Ohio AFL-CIO, have partnered with Michigan unions to create a new, non-profit trust to offer high-quality care at below-market rates. Michigan unions created their Public Employee Trust in 1985 to reduce costs, improve quality and gain more control over their benefits and their premiums. After two years of research and negotiations, Michigan and Ohio unions decided to join forces.
The Ohio Health Care Trust offers medical, prescription drug, dental and vision coverage, as well as term life and disability insurance. The Trust can administer 401(k) and 403 (b) tax-deferred annuity plans, along with Section 125 “cafeteria” plans. Employers and unions can purchase any or all of these benefit programs. But, only bargaining unions represented by unions covered by the Trust and other employees working for the same employer are eligible.
Plans Can Reduce Costs
The Trust can offer teachers, school employees, higher education faculty and staff, and other public employees the same coverage they enjoy now at less cost, in most cases. Or, the Trust can make expanded benefits affordable. The union-sponsored plan can also provide coverage to private sector employees.
How does the Trust hold down costs? First, it is a non-profit entity. Administrative costs are kept to a minimum, and no profits are retained. Second, the Trust negotiates the steepest discounts available with pharmacy benefit managers, hospitals and physician groups. All costs, discounts and contracts are transparent. Nothing is hidden from the employers or the unions seeking coverage. Commercial health insurance and prescription benefit managers too often do not reveal the discounts they negotiate with drug companies and health care providers, so their customers don’t know if they are getting the best available price.
In Ohio, the union-sponsored plan took another innovative step to reduce administrative costs and corporate profits that add to health care costs. After soliciting and examining bids, the Ohio Health Care Trust contracted directly with a provider network, Emerald Health, bypassing the for-profit health insurance companies altogether. Emerald has an extensive network of hospitals, doctors and other health care providers throughout the state, and has negotiated very competitive discounts with them.
Emerald has partnered with a national network, Health EOS, so that employees and family members covered by the Trust have access to care while traveling out of state or attending college.
For prescription drug coverage, the Trust participates in a larger AFL-CIO purchasing coalition that has negotiated one of the lowest cost plans in the country, administered by Caremark.
And, medical benefits offered by the Trust include a state-of-the-art program that monitors the quality of medical care to ensure that patients are getting the treatment they need and that care is coordinated among various doctors treating the same patient. Health care experts agree that timely and appropriate medical care is the most effective way to reduce health care costs in the long run.
Finally, employers and unions that contract with the Trust for benefits do not need to use brokers who add their commission to health insurance premiums.
In addition to the Ohio AFL-CIO, sponsoring unions in Ohio include the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Association of Public School Employees/AFSCME, the Ohio Nurses Association, Communications Workers of America, Operating Engineers, Local 20, and the Ohio AFL-CIO. Several other unions are now considering becoming sponsors. Sponsoring unions have a seat on the plan’s board of trustees. OFT President Tom Mooney became the board’s first chairman in May. Officers of the Trust will rotate annually.
Contact Information
If your school district, college or agency has health care coverage, or other insurance programs or benefits that are up for renewal, your local union may want to get more information about benefits and services offered by the Ohio Health Care Trust. Contact Bob McCollins, executive director of marketing and field services for the Trust, at 1-800-968-9682 ext. 383, 614-537-9741 cell or bmccollins@mebs.com.
Employers and unions should, however, seek competitive bids for all employee benefits periodically and should retain expert consultants to review their coverage and costs and assist them in preparing RFPs and analyzing the bids they receive. But, such consultants should be paid fixed fees for their services, not a percentage of premiums.
Article Courtesy of the Ohio Federation of Teacher, AFT, AFL-CIO
On Lipitor? Read this
October 15, 2005
Lipitor or Generic? Billion-Dollar Battle Looms
By ALEX BERENSON
The Lipitor war is about to begin.
Starting next June, insurers and government agencies will have the opportunity to save billions of dollars by moving patients from Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering drug by Pfizer that is the world's top-selling medication, to an inexpensive generic version of Zocor, a similar but less potent drug now made by Merck.
Some insurers are already planning ways to move patients from Lipitor to generic cholesterol drugs after Zocor loses its patent protection. But Pfizer, which plans to use marketing muscle and clinical data to fight that migration, says that Lipitor has unique benefits and is worth a premium price, especially for patients at high risk of heart attacks.
Both medicines belong to a class of drugs known as statins, which are the nation's best-selling medications, with almost 150 million prescriptions expected to be filled this year at a cost of $16 billion. The insurers, and some cardiologists, say that switching patients from Lipitor to generic Zocor will be a safe way to cut costs in an era of skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices.
In many cases, they say, patients who now take the most commonly prescribed dosage of Lipitor - 10 milligrams daily - can reduce their cholesterol just as much with Zocor. Lipitor costs $2 or more a day, while generic Zocor will probably cost 35 cents or less.
"If I was taking a statin, I'd want to take the cheapest one, as long as I get to the goal that I wanted to get to," said Dr. Scott Grundy, a researcher who has consulted for both Merck and Pfizer. Dr. Grundy led a federal panel that in 2001 wrote guidelines for treating people with high cholesterol.
But other doctors and epidemiologists say that Lipitor may be the best drug for many patients. "It would not be good medicine to go to a cheaper medicine that has less efficacy in our high-risk patients," said Dr. Robert Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Maryland, who has been paid by Pfizer to help conduct a clinical trial of Lipitor.
Pfizer says it will fiercely defend Lipitor. "By taking any dose of Lipitor, you will reduce the risk of a cardiovascular event faster and to a greater degree than you will with any other medicine," said J. Patrick Kelly, Pfizer's president of United States pharmaceuticals.
The fight over Lipitor involves a collision of fundamental forces in American health care. Spending on prescription drugs has jumped from $40 billion in 1990 to almost $250 billion this year, and continues to rise faster than overall inflation. But while many Americans say they believe that prescription drugs cost too much, they rarely want to accept generic medicines for themselves instead of more expensive drugs that may be only marginally better - especially since insurers or government agencies pay nearly 70 percent of all drug costs.
Dr. JoAnne Foody, a practicing cardiologist and a professor at Yale University School of Medicine, said she expected to continue prescribing Lipitor for her high-risk patients, who need the maximum possible reduction in cholesterol.
But she said she would be inclined to switch other patients off Lipitor onto generic Zocor, also called simvastatin, if the price difference was significant.
"There are a very large portion of patients where the data for simvastatin are equivalent and sometimes better than the data for Lipitor," Dr. Foody said.
But convincing American patients to give up a brand-name medicine and take a generic drug is not easy, said Albert Rauch, a drug industry analyst at A. G. Edwards, a regional brokerage firm based in St. Louis.
For example, even though the antacid Prilosec is available in an inexpensive over-the-counter form, people prefer three very similar but higher-priced prescription antacids - Prevacid, Nexium and Protonix. Those three will have $10 billion in United States sales this year.
"Therapeutic substitution - substituting one product for another in the same class - just hasn't happened yet," Mr. Rauch said.
And Lipitor has more than Pfizer's marketing dollars working for it. Last month, an analysis of 14 clinical trials by Oxford University and the University of Sydney in Australia found that the more potent the statin and the greater the cholesterol reduction, the lower the risk of heart disease.
Dr. Colin Baigent, who oversaw the analysis, did not directly endorse Lipitor but said he believed that statins were not interchangeable.
"The aim should be to get their LDL cholesterol as low as possible," Dr. Baigent said, referring to low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol - commonly called bad cholesterol. "There is potential for many patients benefiting more."
Statins work by interfering with the liver's ability to synthesize LDL cholesterol. All statins are chemically similar, although Lipitor, whose active ingredient is called atorvastatin, is more potent than Zocor, or simvastatin.
The highest dosage of Lipitor (80 milligrams) can reduce cholesterol as much as 57 percent in an average patient, while the highest dosage of simvastatin lowers cholesterol 47 percent. But because most patients are not placed on the highest dosages, the two drugs can achieve comparable cholesterol-lowering results in many cases.
Several large clinical trials have shown that statins reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And statins appear to be safe for most patients, although they can cause muscle weakness in some people and occasionally lead to severe muscle damage.
As a result, statins have become among the most commonly prescribed drugs. This year's forecast of 150 million statin prescriptions in this country is up from 82 million in 1999, according to IMS Health, a Pennsylvania company that compiles data about drug usage.
About half of those prescriptions will be for Lipitor, which is taken by 12 million Americans a year, at a cost of about $8 billion. Worldwide, Lipitor sales are forecast to top $12 billion this year, making the drug by far the best-selling prescription medicine.
Prescription drugs are protected by patents that give their inventors the exclusive right to sell them for up to 20 years, though they usually must spend part of that time gaining federal approval. The patent protection enables the drug maker that discovered the drug to earn back its development costs and make a profit. Otherwise, other companies could make and sell identical versions of the medicine, undercutting the company that invented it.
But when a patent expires, the legal protection disappears. At that point any company can make the drug, as long as it proves to the Food and Drug Administration that its version is identical to the original. The patent on Lipitor is to expire in 2011, but that patent has been challenged.
Zocor will lose its patent protection next June 23, and be opened to competition. Ivax, a generic drug company, has already said it will produce a generic version of the drug, and other companies plan to follow. As more generics enter the market, the price of generic simvastatin could fall to 35 cents a pill or less, compared with $3 or more now, according to Richard T. Evans, a drug industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.
Merck will lose billions of dollars in annual sales and profits when Zocor loses its patent protection. To recoup its profits, Merck has introduced another anticholesterol drug, Vytorin, which combines Zocor with Zetia, a medicine from Schering-Plough that is not a statin but also reduces cholesterol.
Vytorin is about as effective as Lipitor at lowering cholesterol, so both Merck and Pfizer have a stake in convincing doctors and insurers that they should pay extra for the increased potency their drugs offer over generic Zocor. But because Lipitor is so much more popular than Vytorin, Pfizer has more to lose than Merck and Schering-Plough if generic simvastatin becomes a standard treatment.
Last week, Express Scripts, a Missouri company that helps companies design drug benefit plans, said it would drop Lipitor from its list of preferred drugs. Instead, Express Scripts has devised a plan that will offer patients taking generic simvastatin a much lower co-payment on their prescriptions.
Steve Littlejohn, a spokesman for Express Scripts, said simvastatin was a viable alternative to Lipitor for most patients.
At its minimum 10-milligram dose, Lipitor reduces bad cholesterol an average of 39 percent. In contrast, a 40-milligram dose of simvastatin cuts cholesterol by as much as 41 percent. For patients who need a higher-potency statin, Vytorin will be available, Mr. Littlejohn said. Consumers and physicians and employers have seen the steady, almost inexorable rise in pharmacy costs, and said nothing can be done," Mr. Littlejohn said. "We're saying something can be done."
Other insurers also say the Zocor patent expiration is an opportunity to reduce drug spending. Robert Seidman, the chief pharmacy officer for WellPoint, the nation's largest publicly traded health insurer, estimated that wide use of simvastatin could reduce the nation's drug costs by $2 billion or more a year. To encourage patients to switch from Lipitor, WellPoint plans to offer members four to six months of free simvastatin as soon as generic versions are available, he said.
But Pfizer is fighting back. To demonstrate Lipitor's benefits in different kinds of patients, Pfizer has conducted 400 clinical trials on Lipitor, covering 80,000 people. Lipitor's edge over other statins goes beyond its superior ability to lower cholesterol, said Mr. Kelly.
The data from those clinical trials has enabled Pfizer to repeatedly broaden Lipitor's label of approved uses, changes that must be approved by the F.D.A. Last month, the F.D.A. said Pfizer could begin to market Lipitor for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes in diabetics. To build brand loyalty, Pfizer also has thousands of sales representatives discussing Lipitor with doctors and spends at least $60 million annually to advertise Lipitor to consumers, according to Brandweek magazine. Pfizer declined to discuss how much it spends to market Lipitor.
Dr. David Hyman, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said he did not expect many patients to be switched off Lipitor. He pointed to drugs that lower blood pressure, where expensive branded medicines dominate cheaper generics despite extensive research showing the generics work as well. "So much of the market is really not price-responsive."
But other experts on drug benefits said they believed that generic simvastatin might put a dent in Lipitor's sales, because companies, government agencies and patients had become so concerned about drug costs.
"It's very likely that a large portion of the market, especially those covered by managed care organizations, will switch to generic Zocor," said Albert Wertheimer, a professor of pharmacy at Temple University. "It seems like a reasonable thing to try."
Lipitor or Generic? Billion-Dollar Battle Looms
By ALEX BERENSON
The Lipitor war is about to begin.
Starting next June, insurers and government agencies will have the opportunity to save billions of dollars by moving patients from Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering drug by Pfizer that is the world's top-selling medication, to an inexpensive generic version of Zocor, a similar but less potent drug now made by Merck.
Some insurers are already planning ways to move patients from Lipitor to generic cholesterol drugs after Zocor loses its patent protection. But Pfizer, which plans to use marketing muscle and clinical data to fight that migration, says that Lipitor has unique benefits and is worth a premium price, especially for patients at high risk of heart attacks.
Both medicines belong to a class of drugs known as statins, which are the nation's best-selling medications, with almost 150 million prescriptions expected to be filled this year at a cost of $16 billion. The insurers, and some cardiologists, say that switching patients from Lipitor to generic Zocor will be a safe way to cut costs in an era of skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices.
In many cases, they say, patients who now take the most commonly prescribed dosage of Lipitor - 10 milligrams daily - can reduce their cholesterol just as much with Zocor. Lipitor costs $2 or more a day, while generic Zocor will probably cost 35 cents or less.
"If I was taking a statin, I'd want to take the cheapest one, as long as I get to the goal that I wanted to get to," said Dr. Scott Grundy, a researcher who has consulted for both Merck and Pfizer. Dr. Grundy led a federal panel that in 2001 wrote guidelines for treating people with high cholesterol.
But other doctors and epidemiologists say that Lipitor may be the best drug for many patients. "It would not be good medicine to go to a cheaper medicine that has less efficacy in our high-risk patients," said Dr. Robert Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Maryland, who has been paid by Pfizer to help conduct a clinical trial of Lipitor.
Pfizer says it will fiercely defend Lipitor. "By taking any dose of Lipitor, you will reduce the risk of a cardiovascular event faster and to a greater degree than you will with any other medicine," said J. Patrick Kelly, Pfizer's president of United States pharmaceuticals.
The fight over Lipitor involves a collision of fundamental forces in American health care. Spending on prescription drugs has jumped from $40 billion in 1990 to almost $250 billion this year, and continues to rise faster than overall inflation. But while many Americans say they believe that prescription drugs cost too much, they rarely want to accept generic medicines for themselves instead of more expensive drugs that may be only marginally better - especially since insurers or government agencies pay nearly 70 percent of all drug costs.
Dr. JoAnne Foody, a practicing cardiologist and a professor at Yale University School of Medicine, said she expected to continue prescribing Lipitor for her high-risk patients, who need the maximum possible reduction in cholesterol.
But she said she would be inclined to switch other patients off Lipitor onto generic Zocor, also called simvastatin, if the price difference was significant.
"There are a very large portion of patients where the data for simvastatin are equivalent and sometimes better than the data for Lipitor," Dr. Foody said.
But convincing American patients to give up a brand-name medicine and take a generic drug is not easy, said Albert Rauch, a drug industry analyst at A. G. Edwards, a regional brokerage firm based in St. Louis.
For example, even though the antacid Prilosec is available in an inexpensive over-the-counter form, people prefer three very similar but higher-priced prescription antacids - Prevacid, Nexium and Protonix. Those three will have $10 billion in United States sales this year.
"Therapeutic substitution - substituting one product for another in the same class - just hasn't happened yet," Mr. Rauch said.
And Lipitor has more than Pfizer's marketing dollars working for it. Last month, an analysis of 14 clinical trials by Oxford University and the University of Sydney in Australia found that the more potent the statin and the greater the cholesterol reduction, the lower the risk of heart disease.
Dr. Colin Baigent, who oversaw the analysis, did not directly endorse Lipitor but said he believed that statins were not interchangeable.
"The aim should be to get their LDL cholesterol as low as possible," Dr. Baigent said, referring to low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol - commonly called bad cholesterol. "There is potential for many patients benefiting more."
Statins work by interfering with the liver's ability to synthesize LDL cholesterol. All statins are chemically similar, although Lipitor, whose active ingredient is called atorvastatin, is more potent than Zocor, or simvastatin.
The highest dosage of Lipitor (80 milligrams) can reduce cholesterol as much as 57 percent in an average patient, while the highest dosage of simvastatin lowers cholesterol 47 percent. But because most patients are not placed on the highest dosages, the two drugs can achieve comparable cholesterol-lowering results in many cases.
Several large clinical trials have shown that statins reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And statins appear to be safe for most patients, although they can cause muscle weakness in some people and occasionally lead to severe muscle damage.
As a result, statins have become among the most commonly prescribed drugs. This year's forecast of 150 million statin prescriptions in this country is up from 82 million in 1999, according to IMS Health, a Pennsylvania company that compiles data about drug usage.
About half of those prescriptions will be for Lipitor, which is taken by 12 million Americans a year, at a cost of about $8 billion. Worldwide, Lipitor sales are forecast to top $12 billion this year, making the drug by far the best-selling prescription medicine.
Prescription drugs are protected by patents that give their inventors the exclusive right to sell them for up to 20 years, though they usually must spend part of that time gaining federal approval. The patent protection enables the drug maker that discovered the drug to earn back its development costs and make a profit. Otherwise, other companies could make and sell identical versions of the medicine, undercutting the company that invented it.
But when a patent expires, the legal protection disappears. At that point any company can make the drug, as long as it proves to the Food and Drug Administration that its version is identical to the original. The patent on Lipitor is to expire in 2011, but that patent has been challenged.
Zocor will lose its patent protection next June 23, and be opened to competition. Ivax, a generic drug company, has already said it will produce a generic version of the drug, and other companies plan to follow. As more generics enter the market, the price of generic simvastatin could fall to 35 cents a pill or less, compared with $3 or more now, according to Richard T. Evans, a drug industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.
Merck will lose billions of dollars in annual sales and profits when Zocor loses its patent protection. To recoup its profits, Merck has introduced another anticholesterol drug, Vytorin, which combines Zocor with Zetia, a medicine from Schering-Plough that is not a statin but also reduces cholesterol.
Vytorin is about as effective as Lipitor at lowering cholesterol, so both Merck and Pfizer have a stake in convincing doctors and insurers that they should pay extra for the increased potency their drugs offer over generic Zocor. But because Lipitor is so much more popular than Vytorin, Pfizer has more to lose than Merck and Schering-Plough if generic simvastatin becomes a standard treatment.
Last week, Express Scripts, a Missouri company that helps companies design drug benefit plans, said it would drop Lipitor from its list of preferred drugs. Instead, Express Scripts has devised a plan that will offer patients taking generic simvastatin a much lower co-payment on their prescriptions.
Steve Littlejohn, a spokesman for Express Scripts, said simvastatin was a viable alternative to Lipitor for most patients.
At its minimum 10-milligram dose, Lipitor reduces bad cholesterol an average of 39 percent. In contrast, a 40-milligram dose of simvastatin cuts cholesterol by as much as 41 percent. For patients who need a higher-potency statin, Vytorin will be available, Mr. Littlejohn said. Consumers and physicians and employers have seen the steady, almost inexorable rise in pharmacy costs, and said nothing can be done," Mr. Littlejohn said. "We're saying something can be done."
Other insurers also say the Zocor patent expiration is an opportunity to reduce drug spending. Robert Seidman, the chief pharmacy officer for WellPoint, the nation's largest publicly traded health insurer, estimated that wide use of simvastatin could reduce the nation's drug costs by $2 billion or more a year. To encourage patients to switch from Lipitor, WellPoint plans to offer members four to six months of free simvastatin as soon as generic versions are available, he said.
But Pfizer is fighting back. To demonstrate Lipitor's benefits in different kinds of patients, Pfizer has conducted 400 clinical trials on Lipitor, covering 80,000 people. Lipitor's edge over other statins goes beyond its superior ability to lower cholesterol, said Mr. Kelly.
The data from those clinical trials has enabled Pfizer to repeatedly broaden Lipitor's label of approved uses, changes that must be approved by the F.D.A. Last month, the F.D.A. said Pfizer could begin to market Lipitor for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes in diabetics. To build brand loyalty, Pfizer also has thousands of sales representatives discussing Lipitor with doctors and spends at least $60 million annually to advertise Lipitor to consumers, according to Brandweek magazine. Pfizer declined to discuss how much it spends to market Lipitor.
Dr. David Hyman, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said he did not expect many patients to be switched off Lipitor. He pointed to drugs that lower blood pressure, where expensive branded medicines dominate cheaper generics despite extensive research showing the generics work as well. "So much of the market is really not price-responsive."
But other experts on drug benefits said they believed that generic simvastatin might put a dent in Lipitor's sales, because companies, government agencies and patients had become so concerned about drug costs.
"It's very likely that a large portion of the market, especially those covered by managed care organizations, will switch to generic Zocor," said Albert Wertheimer, a professor of pharmacy at Temple University. "It seems like a reasonable thing to try."
Friday, October 14, 2005
STRS to hold health care discussion meetings throughout the state; you are strongly urged to sign up: first come, first served
Health Care Discussion Meetings
From the STRS website: http://www.strsoh.org/resources/hcmeetings.html
STRS Ohio and the Health Care Advocates for STRS invite you to join us at one of the meetings listed below. At these meetings, we’ll be sharing a proposal for a possible legislative initiative that increases member and employer contributions to support the STRS Ohio Health Care Program for current and future retirees. We also want to share what we see happening to health care costs in the future — and what you should be preparing for in retirement.
Each Health Care Discussion meeting will begin at 7 p.m. and include a special half-hour presentation. Audience members will then be invited to ask questions and share comments. Meetings will end by 8:30 p.m. Everyone who attends a meeting will be given an opportunity to complete a survey.
Due to limited seating at each meeting site, advance registration is required and is on a first-come basis. Click here to register online for a Health Care Discussion meeting. You may also register for a meeting by calling STRS Ohio’s Member Services Center toll-free at 1-888-227-7877. A written confirmation of your registration will be sent to you, along with directions to the meeting location.
Listed below are the dates and locations for the meetings.
Health Care Discussion Meeting Dates
Tuesday, Oct. 25: Athens; The Ohio University Inn, 331 Richland Ave., Athens, OH 45701
Wednesday, Oct. 26: Columbus; STRS Ohio, 275 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43215
Thursday, Oct. 27: Cincinnati; Holiday Inn--Cincinnati Eastgate, 4501 Eastgate Blvd., Cincinnati, OH 45245
Thursday, Oct. 27: Portsmouth; Shawnee State University, 940 Second St., Portsmouth, OH 45662
Wednesday, Nov. 2: Cleveland; Quality Inn & Suites, Cleveland Airport, 7230 Engle Road, Middleburg Heights, OH 44130
Thursday, Nov. 3: Dayton; Holiday Inn--Dayton North, 2301 Wagoner-Ford Rd., Dayton, OH 45414
Tuesday, Nov. 8: Cincinnati; Five Seasons Country Club, 11790 Snider Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45249
Tuesday, Nov. 8: Toledo; Holiday Inn--French Quarter, 10630 Fremont Pike, Perrysburg, OH 43551
Wednesday, Nov. 9: Canton; Four Points by Sheraton, Canton, 4375 Metro Circle NW, Canton, OH 44720
Thursday, Nov. 10: Akron; Four Points by Sheraton, Akron West, 3150 Market Street, Akron, OH 44333
Tuesday, Nov. 15: Youngstown; Holiday Inn--Youngstown--South, 7410 South Ave., Boardman, OH 44512
Tuesday, Nov. 15: Lima; Holiday Inn, 1920 Roschman Ave., Lima, OH 45084
Thursday, Nov. 17: Cleveland; Holiday Inn--Beachwood, 3750 Orange Place, Beachwood, OH
Registration
Registration is on a first-come basis. Click here to register online for a Health Care Discussion meeting. You may also register for a meeting by calling the Member Services Center toll-free at 1-888-227-7877.
The Health Care Discussion presentation is also available for viewing online. Click here to see the online version.
Health Care Discussion Meetings Online Presentation
The online presentation for the Health Care Discussion meetings is still being developed. To be notified when the presentation is available, click the link below to send an e-mail to the Webmaster.
Notify me when the online presentation is available.
From the STRS website: http://www.strsoh.org/resources/hcmeetings.html
STRS Ohio and the Health Care Advocates for STRS invite you to join us at one of the meetings listed below. At these meetings, we’ll be sharing a proposal for a possible legislative initiative that increases member and employer contributions to support the STRS Ohio Health Care Program for current and future retirees. We also want to share what we see happening to health care costs in the future — and what you should be preparing for in retirement.
Each Health Care Discussion meeting will begin at 7 p.m. and include a special half-hour presentation. Audience members will then be invited to ask questions and share comments. Meetings will end by 8:30 p.m. Everyone who attends a meeting will be given an opportunity to complete a survey.
Due to limited seating at each meeting site, advance registration is required and is on a first-come basis. Click here to register online for a Health Care Discussion meeting. You may also register for a meeting by calling STRS Ohio’s Member Services Center toll-free at 1-888-227-7877. A written confirmation of your registration will be sent to you, along with directions to the meeting location.
Listed below are the dates and locations for the meetings.
Health Care Discussion Meeting Dates
Tuesday, Oct. 25: Athens; The Ohio University Inn, 331 Richland Ave., Athens, OH 45701
Wednesday, Oct. 26: Columbus; STRS Ohio, 275 E. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43215
Thursday, Oct. 27: Cincinnati; Holiday Inn--Cincinnati Eastgate, 4501 Eastgate Blvd., Cincinnati, OH 45245
Thursday, Oct. 27: Portsmouth; Shawnee State University, 940 Second St., Portsmouth, OH 45662
Wednesday, Nov. 2: Cleveland; Quality Inn & Suites, Cleveland Airport, 7230 Engle Road, Middleburg Heights, OH 44130
Thursday, Nov. 3: Dayton; Holiday Inn--Dayton North, 2301 Wagoner-Ford Rd., Dayton, OH 45414
Tuesday, Nov. 8: Cincinnati; Five Seasons Country Club, 11790 Snider Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45249
Tuesday, Nov. 8: Toledo; Holiday Inn--French Quarter, 10630 Fremont Pike, Perrysburg, OH 43551
Wednesday, Nov. 9: Canton; Four Points by Sheraton, Canton, 4375 Metro Circle NW, Canton, OH 44720
Thursday, Nov. 10: Akron; Four Points by Sheraton, Akron West, 3150 Market Street, Akron, OH 44333
Tuesday, Nov. 15: Youngstown; Holiday Inn--Youngstown--South, 7410 South Ave., Boardman, OH 44512
Tuesday, Nov. 15: Lima; Holiday Inn, 1920 Roschman Ave., Lima, OH 45084
Thursday, Nov. 17: Cleveland; Holiday Inn--Beachwood, 3750 Orange Place, Beachwood, OH
Registration
Registration is on a first-come basis. Click here to register online for a Health Care Discussion meeting. You may also register for a meeting by calling the Member Services Center toll-free at 1-888-227-7877.
The Health Care Discussion presentation is also available for viewing online. Click here to see the online version.
Health Care Discussion Meetings Online Presentation
The online presentation for the Health Care Discussion meetings is still being developed. To be notified when the presentation is available, click the link below to send an e-mail to the Webmaster.
Notify me when the online presentation is available.
STRS: October Board meeting schedule
Public Meeting Notice for Oct. 19–21, 2005
The State Teachers Retirement Board and Committee meetings currently scheduled at the STRS Ohio offices, 275 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, are as follows:
Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005
8:30 a.m. Disability Committee — Executive Session
3 p.m. Blue Ribbon Committee (A very brief meeting of the Blue Ribbon Committee is expected on Wed., Oct. 19, to discuss the final stages of the Asset/Liability Study.)
Thursday, Oct. 20, 2005
9 a.m. Retirement Board Meeting*
Friday, Oct. 21, 2005
9 a.m. Resumption of the Retirement Board Meeting*
* The Retirement Board is expected to receive reports from the Finance Department (Actuarial Valuation), Investment Department and Member Benefits Department (regarding health care) on Thursday. The public participation portion of the Board’s agenda is expected at 1 p.m. on Thursday. The Retirement Board meeting will resume at 9 a.m. on Friday, October 21, to address routine matters and receive a report from the Member Benefits Department regarding pension benefits.
The State Teachers Retirement Board and Committee meetings currently scheduled at the STRS Ohio offices, 275 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, are as follows:
Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005
8:30 a.m. Disability Committee — Executive Session
3 p.m. Blue Ribbon Committee (A very brief meeting of the Blue Ribbon Committee is expected on Wed., Oct. 19, to discuss the final stages of the Asset/Liability Study.)
Thursday, Oct. 20, 2005
9 a.m. Retirement Board Meeting*
Friday, Oct. 21, 2005
9 a.m. Resumption of the Retirement Board Meeting*
* The Retirement Board is expected to receive reports from the Finance Department (Actuarial Valuation), Investment Department and Member Benefits Department (regarding health care) on Thursday. The public participation portion of the Board’s agenda is expected at 1 p.m. on Thursday. The Retirement Board meeting will resume at 9 a.m. on Friday, October 21, to address routine matters and receive a report from the Member Benefits Department regarding pension benefits.
Another labyrinth of hospital bills
"I'm the president's senior adviser on health information technology, and when I get an E.O.B. for my 4-year-old's care, I can't figure out what happened, or what I'm supposed to do," said Dr. David Brailer, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, whose office is in the Department of Health and Human Services. "I can't figure out what care it was related to or who did what."
"Mr. Pollack and other health care experts said they believed that only a small percentage of people end up calling their insurance company to inquire about a claim or to dispute a decision. Still fewer call a hospital to go over a bill they believe might contain errors."
Insurance companies, hospitals, employers, and self funded retirement systems bank on this one- boy do they. John
The New York Times
October 13, 2005
Being a Patient
Treated for Illness, Then Lost in Labyrinth of Bills
By KATIE HAFNER
When Bracha Klausner returned home after an extended hospital stay for a ruptured intestine three years ago, she found stacks of mail from doctors and hospitals waiting for her.
There were so many envelopes - some of them very thick - that at first, Mrs. Klausner, 77, could not bring herself to open them, and she stored them in large shopping bags in her Manhattan apartment.
When she finally did open some of the envelopes, there were pages filled with dozens of carefully detailed items, each accompanied by a service code: "Partial thrombo 2300214 102.00," "KUB Flat 2651040 466.00."
On the 15th page or so of each bill, a "balance forward" line listed amounts in the tens of thousands of dollars. One totaled $77,858.04.
Another mailing, from her insurance company, clearly said, in large type, "This is not a bill." But she could make no sense of the remark codes: "G7 - Your benefit is based on the difference between Medicare's allowable expense and the amount Medicare paid" or "QN - Your claim may have been separated for processing purposes."
Mrs. Klausner's experience is shared by millions of Americans who, frustrated and confused, find themselves devoting enormous amounts of time and energy to sorting out their medical bills.
Walk into any drugstore, and the next few minutes of your life are fairly predictable. After considering the choices, you make your purchases and head for the cashier. Seconds after the transaction, you are handed a receipt that reports to the penny what you paid for each product, along with its brand, its size, and the date, time and location of the purchase. But become a patient, and you enter a world of paperwork so surreal that it belongs in one of Kafka's tales of the triumph of faceless bureaucracies. And although some insurers and hospitals are trying to streamline and simplify bills, the efforts have been piecemeal.
Medical paperwork is a world of co-payments and co-insurers, deductibles, exclusions and contracted fees. Nothing is as it seems: patients receive statements that often do not reflect what is actually owed; telephone calls to customer service agents are at best time-consuming and at worst fruitless. The explanations of benefits that insurers send out - known as E.O.B.'s - are filled with unintelligible codes.
The system is so impenetrable that it mystifies even the most knowledgeable.
"I'm the president's senior adviser on health information technology, and when I get an E.O.B. for my 4-year-old's care, I can't figure out what happened, or what I'm supposed to do," said Dr. David Brailer, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, whose office is in the Department of Health and Human Services. "I can't figure out what care it was related to or who did what."
Dr. Blackford Middleton, a professor at Harvard Medical School with special training in health services research, said he did not fare much better than Dr. Brailer.
"I understand the words of diagnoses and procedures," he said. "But codes? No. Or how things are paid or not paid? I don't understand that."
Dr. Brailer said he often used an analogy to describe the current state of medical billing.
"Suppose you walk into a restaurant," he said, "and you don't get a menu, you don't get any choice of what food you'll eat, they don't tell you what it is when they're serving it to you, they don't tell you what it's going to cost."
"Then, weeks or months later, you get a bill that tells you all the food you ate and the drinks you had, some of which you remember and some you don't, and although you get the bill, you still can't figure out what you really owe," Dr. Brailer said.
Some people make valiant efforts to sort through bills and claims, but end up throwing up their hands; others ignore them, until they are pursued by collection agencies; still others, basically healthy but weary at the prospect of a paperwork fusillade, stop going to the doctor altogether.
Piles Upon Piles
In the days before managed care, most insurance plans operated on a fee-for-service basis. Patients paid 20 percent of medical fees; insurers paid 80 percent. But as health care costs have continued to rise, many patients are being required to pay an ever-larger part of their medical bills, and deductibles continue to increase. And to keep the system churning, close to 30 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes for administration, much of it spent generating bills and explanations of benefits.
"The number of bureaucrats between the point of service and the final cash reckoning is just incredible," said Dr. Thomas Delbanco, a professor of primary care medicine at Harvard Medical School who is a leader in the field of patient-centered care.
For many people, the piles of paperwork they must contend with reinforce a simmering discontent with a system that aggravates tensions among patients, hospitals, doctors and insurers.
Insurance companies are, by and large, unapologetic.
"Even though the amount of paperwork a patient has to deal with might seem to be a lot, it would be much worse if there wasn't a unifying organization like a health plan easing that burden," said Dr. Alan Sokolow, chief medical officer at Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield in New York.
This might come as a surprise to Ellen Mayer, an artist who lives in Chester, N.Y. Ms. Mayer, 54, has a rare type of gastrointestinal cancer that requires constant monitoring through blood work, CT scans and PET scans.
The paperwork nightmare started for Ms. Mayer when her oncologist switched hospitals. Everything suddenly seemed to need a justification, or a new piece of paper with an authorization.
The stacks of papers, folders and Post-It notes related to Ms. Mayer's treatment have started to take over her house. They fill manila envelopes, boxes and files, which fill closets. They spill from the dining room table onto chairs.
"You can't just be sick," she said. "You have to be sick and be drowning in paperwork."
So overwhelming has the paperwork grown that Ms. Mayer has considered giving up and ceasing all treatment because of the bureaucratic hassle that accompanies it.
"It's comical, it's unbelievable," she said. "And I think to myself, 'What if I was an elderly person, or a single person? What if I wasn't healthy enough to handle it?' "
Dr. Michael Mustille, associate executive director of the Permanente Federation in Oakland, Calif., said medical paperwork often delivered "a double psychological whammy."
"People get these things that look expensive that they can't understand," Dr. Mustille said, "and then there's the worry that the people they've paid for insurance may decline to assume responsibility for it."
In Mrs. Klausner's case, her son bought her an elaborate paper organizer, hoping it might help her face the chaos. She never used it.
Creditors began to call. Whenever a collection notice showed up, Mrs. Klausner panicked and wrote a check or reached for the telephone to call her son for help.
In the end, Medicare and United Healthcare paid most of Mrs. Klausner's bills, which added up to more than $150,000. And although the unwelcome mail has ceased, she cannot bring herself to throw out the bags filled mostly with unopened envelopes dating back to 2002, as if doing so might violate a law.
Dr. Middleton went through something similar with his elderly mother, Dugan Middleton, a former nurse who died of thyroid cancer last February at age 79.
Mrs. Middleton, who had lived alone in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., preferred to handle the paperwork herself.
"It went on and on, with her reconciling her accounts with a lot of different doctors," Dr. Middleton said.
He said that his mother wrote check after check and that "I'm sure she was paying many of the same bills twice."
His medical credentials notwithstanding, Dr. Middleton was at a loss. "It was ridiculously complex," he recalled.
Finally, in the last months of his mother's life, Dr. Middleton hired a social worker who knew how to navigate the system to help with the bills.
How did things get this bad?
Most health care in the United States is fragmented and profit-driven, a system in which everyone but the patient is meant to benefit financially.
"Fragmentation is a fact of life in health care, and people consider that to be one of the most fundamental problems," Dr. Brailer said. "We pay by the piece. Everybody gets paid individually to do something: to see a patient, to admit someone, to do a lab test, to do a prescription, so health care is swamped by detailed, line-item bills."
After an office visit, a physician sends a diagnostic code to the insurer, which then decides the level of payment. These codes differ from the codes the insurer uses in the E.O.B.'s it sends to patients to explain its decisions.
The billing codes used by hospitals are something else entirely.
"Each of them has their own system of paperwork, with their own billing codes," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
"Everyone is bogged down by this: the physicians, the hospitals, and ultimately it reverberates to the consumer," Mr. Pollack said. "And to the extent the consumer sees the bill, it's like reading hieroglyphics."
Mr. Pollack and other health care experts said they believed that only a small percentage of people end up calling their insurance company to inquire about a claim or to dispute a decision. Still fewer call a hospital to go over a bill they believe might contain errors.
The Navigator
In late 2003, Bonnie MacKellar's son Elias, then nearly 2, stopped eating. Then he stopped talking and walking. Elias had stage IV neuroblastoma, a highly malignant tumor of the nervous system.
Though pushed to their emotional limits, Ms. MacKellar and her husband, Thomas Dube, refused to buckle until the bills started to appear in the mail each day: hospital bills amounting to tens of thousands of dollars; invoices from doctors she did not remember meeting; E.O.B.'s from her insurance company that explained nothing.
"It is hard to describe what it is like to be confronted with mounds of scary claims and bills when you have a 2-year-old who is extremely ill, who needs constant nursing and doesn't have a great chance of surviving," Ms. MacKellar said. "And to sit in a hospital room, on hold with the insurance company for 30 minutes or more only to have your child start puking just as you get a rep on the line."
The E.O.B.'s seemed to serve little purpose beyond engendering fear. They were detailed enough ("radiology services 2/19/04"), but when it came to understanding the boxes listing the amounts charged, the amounts not covered, the fees allowed, the available benefit and the remark code (IT, 29, and the ever-mysterious QN ), Ms. MacKellar and her husband were at a loss.
One statement that said, "Plan pays $00.00, patient pays $56,750.00," caused panic.
The remark code "07" stated, "These charges are for services provided after this patient's coverage was canceled."
There had been no cancellation of coverage, but convincing the insurance company of that fact was an ordeal.
The breaking point came when the group number on the health plan changed, and Ms. MacKellar was unable to convince the insurance company that it was billing under the wrong number.
In despair, she consulted a social services agency, which put her in touch with Lin Osborn, a private consultant fluent in the arcane language of health care billing. For a fee, Ms. MacKellar was told, Ms. Osborn could take all the paperwork off her hands.
An expert in deciphering insurance and hospital billing codes, Ms. Osborn spent several days straight working on the case and took care of the entire mess, Ms. MacKellar said.
Still Searching
Although there is no single solution to the medical billing morass, Dr. Brailer, of the Health and Human Services Department, said that the increasing use of electronic records to enable insurers, physicians, hospitals and pharmacies to share data would help.
And in some segments of the health care system, efforts are being made to simplify and cut down on paperwork. Some insurance carriers, for example, are reducing the number of E.O.B.'s they send out, posting them online instead.
For the past 18 months, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has been working to reduce the total amount of paper it sends out.
"When there's no remaining financial liability, then we don't send the E.O.B.'s," said Bob Greczyn, president of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina is offering physicians an electronic card reader that lets patients find out how much they owe while they are still in the doctor's office.
In another effort to improve the system, the Patient Friendly Billing Project, led by the Healthcare Financial Management Association, is working with insurance companies on a long-term project to make bills more comprehensible.
Still, Dr. Brailer said that, on the whole, "there isn't a lot under way" in terms of efforts to fix the system.
Dr. Brailer pointed out that there had been frequent calls for a standardized insurance billing form, which would sharply reduce duplication and paperwork costs and "make patient management of these as simple as online checking."
But, he said, "this has not gone beyond the wishful-thinking level because the changeover would cost a lot."
Mitch Mayne, 38, is a marketing executive in San Francisco who considers himself basically healthy.
Mr. Mayne went to his doctor three times between March and June for the same thing: recurring bronchitis.
Yet the explanation of benefits statements he received from his insurer after each office visit differed drastically in the amount he owed, varying from $10.66 to $90, with no explanation of the services provided.
"What did I do on June 27 that was different than what I did on April 6 that was different than what I did on March 4?" Mr. Mayne asked.
When he calls for an explanation of the E.O.B.'s, he said, the most tangible result he sees is a new card in the mail with no indication of the amount he owes as a co-payment printed on the card.
"I'm paying through the nose for this premium, and when I go to the doctor it's a roll of the dice as to whether or not they'll pay it," said Mr. Mayne. "It seems like it depends on the mood of whoever happens to be doing the claim that day, or on the phases of the moon."
Mr. Mayne recently grew so fed up that he decided to try to beat the bronchitis on his own. "I can't deal with all this paperwork," he recalled saying. "It's just too much of a hassle." That turned out to be a mistake. Mr. Mayne became so sick that he finally relented and saw his doctor.
What if something truly catastrophic should happen to the state of his health?
"Oh wow, I hadn't even thought of that," Mr. Mayne said. "That's actually a pretty scary proposition. If I can't manage my health care as a healthy individual, the prospect of trying to manage it and be really sick at the same time - I don't know that I could do it."
"Mr. Pollack and other health care experts said they believed that only a small percentage of people end up calling their insurance company to inquire about a claim or to dispute a decision. Still fewer call a hospital to go over a bill they believe might contain errors."
Insurance companies, hospitals, employers, and self funded retirement systems bank on this one- boy do they. John
The New York Times
October 13, 2005
Being a Patient
Treated for Illness, Then Lost in Labyrinth of Bills
By KATIE HAFNER
When Bracha Klausner returned home after an extended hospital stay for a ruptured intestine three years ago, she found stacks of mail from doctors and hospitals waiting for her.
There were so many envelopes - some of them very thick - that at first, Mrs. Klausner, 77, could not bring herself to open them, and she stored them in large shopping bags in her Manhattan apartment.
When she finally did open some of the envelopes, there were pages filled with dozens of carefully detailed items, each accompanied by a service code: "Partial thrombo 2300214 102.00," "KUB Flat 2651040 466.00."
On the 15th page or so of each bill, a "balance forward" line listed amounts in the tens of thousands of dollars. One totaled $77,858.04.
Another mailing, from her insurance company, clearly said, in large type, "This is not a bill." But she could make no sense of the remark codes: "G7 - Your benefit is based on the difference between Medicare's allowable expense and the amount Medicare paid" or "QN - Your claim may have been separated for processing purposes."
Mrs. Klausner's experience is shared by millions of Americans who, frustrated and confused, find themselves devoting enormous amounts of time and energy to sorting out their medical bills.
Walk into any drugstore, and the next few minutes of your life are fairly predictable. After considering the choices, you make your purchases and head for the cashier. Seconds after the transaction, you are handed a receipt that reports to the penny what you paid for each product, along with its brand, its size, and the date, time and location of the purchase. But become a patient, and you enter a world of paperwork so surreal that it belongs in one of Kafka's tales of the triumph of faceless bureaucracies. And although some insurers and hospitals are trying to streamline and simplify bills, the efforts have been piecemeal.
Medical paperwork is a world of co-payments and co-insurers, deductibles, exclusions and contracted fees. Nothing is as it seems: patients receive statements that often do not reflect what is actually owed; telephone calls to customer service agents are at best time-consuming and at worst fruitless. The explanations of benefits that insurers send out - known as E.O.B.'s - are filled with unintelligible codes.
The system is so impenetrable that it mystifies even the most knowledgeable.
"I'm the president's senior adviser on health information technology, and when I get an E.O.B. for my 4-year-old's care, I can't figure out what happened, or what I'm supposed to do," said Dr. David Brailer, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, whose office is in the Department of Health and Human Services. "I can't figure out what care it was related to or who did what."
Dr. Blackford Middleton, a professor at Harvard Medical School with special training in health services research, said he did not fare much better than Dr. Brailer.
"I understand the words of diagnoses and procedures," he said. "But codes? No. Or how things are paid or not paid? I don't understand that."
Dr. Brailer said he often used an analogy to describe the current state of medical billing.
"Suppose you walk into a restaurant," he said, "and you don't get a menu, you don't get any choice of what food you'll eat, they don't tell you what it is when they're serving it to you, they don't tell you what it's going to cost."
"Then, weeks or months later, you get a bill that tells you all the food you ate and the drinks you had, some of which you remember and some you don't, and although you get the bill, you still can't figure out what you really owe," Dr. Brailer said.
Some people make valiant efforts to sort through bills and claims, but end up throwing up their hands; others ignore them, until they are pursued by collection agencies; still others, basically healthy but weary at the prospect of a paperwork fusillade, stop going to the doctor altogether.
Piles Upon Piles
In the days before managed care, most insurance plans operated on a fee-for-service basis. Patients paid 20 percent of medical fees; insurers paid 80 percent. But as health care costs have continued to rise, many patients are being required to pay an ever-larger part of their medical bills, and deductibles continue to increase. And to keep the system churning, close to 30 cents of every dollar spent on health care goes for administration, much of it spent generating bills and explanations of benefits.
"The number of bureaucrats between the point of service and the final cash reckoning is just incredible," said Dr. Thomas Delbanco, a professor of primary care medicine at Harvard Medical School who is a leader in the field of patient-centered care.
For many people, the piles of paperwork they must contend with reinforce a simmering discontent with a system that aggravates tensions among patients, hospitals, doctors and insurers.
Insurance companies are, by and large, unapologetic.
"Even though the amount of paperwork a patient has to deal with might seem to be a lot, it would be much worse if there wasn't a unifying organization like a health plan easing that burden," said Dr. Alan Sokolow, chief medical officer at Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield in New York.
This might come as a surprise to Ellen Mayer, an artist who lives in Chester, N.Y. Ms. Mayer, 54, has a rare type of gastrointestinal cancer that requires constant monitoring through blood work, CT scans and PET scans.
The paperwork nightmare started for Ms. Mayer when her oncologist switched hospitals. Everything suddenly seemed to need a justification, or a new piece of paper with an authorization.
The stacks of papers, folders and Post-It notes related to Ms. Mayer's treatment have started to take over her house. They fill manila envelopes, boxes and files, which fill closets. They spill from the dining room table onto chairs.
"You can't just be sick," she said. "You have to be sick and be drowning in paperwork."
So overwhelming has the paperwork grown that Ms. Mayer has considered giving up and ceasing all treatment because of the bureaucratic hassle that accompanies it.
"It's comical, it's unbelievable," she said. "And I think to myself, 'What if I was an elderly person, or a single person? What if I wasn't healthy enough to handle it?' "
Dr. Michael Mustille, associate executive director of the Permanente Federation in Oakland, Calif., said medical paperwork often delivered "a double psychological whammy."
"People get these things that look expensive that they can't understand," Dr. Mustille said, "and then there's the worry that the people they've paid for insurance may decline to assume responsibility for it."
In Mrs. Klausner's case, her son bought her an elaborate paper organizer, hoping it might help her face the chaos. She never used it.
Creditors began to call. Whenever a collection notice showed up, Mrs. Klausner panicked and wrote a check or reached for the telephone to call her son for help.
In the end, Medicare and United Healthcare paid most of Mrs. Klausner's bills, which added up to more than $150,000. And although the unwelcome mail has ceased, she cannot bring herself to throw out the bags filled mostly with unopened envelopes dating back to 2002, as if doing so might violate a law.
Dr. Middleton went through something similar with his elderly mother, Dugan Middleton, a former nurse who died of thyroid cancer last February at age 79.
Mrs. Middleton, who had lived alone in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., preferred to handle the paperwork herself.
"It went on and on, with her reconciling her accounts with a lot of different doctors," Dr. Middleton said.
He said that his mother wrote check after check and that "I'm sure she was paying many of the same bills twice."
His medical credentials notwithstanding, Dr. Middleton was at a loss. "It was ridiculously complex," he recalled.
Finally, in the last months of his mother's life, Dr. Middleton hired a social worker who knew how to navigate the system to help with the bills.
How did things get this bad?
Most health care in the United States is fragmented and profit-driven, a system in which everyone but the patient is meant to benefit financially.
"Fragmentation is a fact of life in health care, and people consider that to be one of the most fundamental problems," Dr. Brailer said. "We pay by the piece. Everybody gets paid individually to do something: to see a patient, to admit someone, to do a lab test, to do a prescription, so health care is swamped by detailed, line-item bills."
After an office visit, a physician sends a diagnostic code to the insurer, which then decides the level of payment. These codes differ from the codes the insurer uses in the E.O.B.'s it sends to patients to explain its decisions.
The billing codes used by hospitals are something else entirely.
"Each of them has their own system of paperwork, with their own billing codes," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
"Everyone is bogged down by this: the physicians, the hospitals, and ultimately it reverberates to the consumer," Mr. Pollack said. "And to the extent the consumer sees the bill, it's like reading hieroglyphics."
Mr. Pollack and other health care experts said they believed that only a small percentage of people end up calling their insurance company to inquire about a claim or to dispute a decision. Still fewer call a hospital to go over a bill they believe might contain errors.
The Navigator
In late 2003, Bonnie MacKellar's son Elias, then nearly 2, stopped eating. Then he stopped talking and walking. Elias had stage IV neuroblastoma, a highly malignant tumor of the nervous system.
Though pushed to their emotional limits, Ms. MacKellar and her husband, Thomas Dube, refused to buckle until the bills started to appear in the mail each day: hospital bills amounting to tens of thousands of dollars; invoices from doctors she did not remember meeting; E.O.B.'s from her insurance company that explained nothing.
"It is hard to describe what it is like to be confronted with mounds of scary claims and bills when you have a 2-year-old who is extremely ill, who needs constant nursing and doesn't have a great chance of surviving," Ms. MacKellar said. "And to sit in a hospital room, on hold with the insurance company for 30 minutes or more only to have your child start puking just as you get a rep on the line."
The E.O.B.'s seemed to serve little purpose beyond engendering fear. They were detailed enough ("radiology services 2/19/04"), but when it came to understanding the boxes listing the amounts charged, the amounts not covered, the fees allowed, the available benefit and the remark code (IT, 29, and the ever-mysterious QN ), Ms. MacKellar and her husband were at a loss.
One statement that said, "Plan pays $00.00, patient pays $56,750.00," caused panic.
The remark code "07" stated, "These charges are for services provided after this patient's coverage was canceled."
There had been no cancellation of coverage, but convincing the insurance company of that fact was an ordeal.
The breaking point came when the group number on the health plan changed, and Ms. MacKellar was unable to convince the insurance company that it was billing under the wrong number.
In despair, she consulted a social services agency, which put her in touch with Lin Osborn, a private consultant fluent in the arcane language of health care billing. For a fee, Ms. MacKellar was told, Ms. Osborn could take all the paperwork off her hands.
An expert in deciphering insurance and hospital billing codes, Ms. Osborn spent several days straight working on the case and took care of the entire mess, Ms. MacKellar said.
Still Searching
Although there is no single solution to the medical billing morass, Dr. Brailer, of the Health and Human Services Department, said that the increasing use of electronic records to enable insurers, physicians, hospitals and pharmacies to share data would help.
And in some segments of the health care system, efforts are being made to simplify and cut down on paperwork. Some insurance carriers, for example, are reducing the number of E.O.B.'s they send out, posting them online instead.
For the past 18 months, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has been working to reduce the total amount of paper it sends out.
"When there's no remaining financial liability, then we don't send the E.O.B.'s," said Bob Greczyn, president of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina is offering physicians an electronic card reader that lets patients find out how much they owe while they are still in the doctor's office.
In another effort to improve the system, the Patient Friendly Billing Project, led by the Healthcare Financial Management Association, is working with insurance companies on a long-term project to make bills more comprehensible.
Still, Dr. Brailer said that, on the whole, "there isn't a lot under way" in terms of efforts to fix the system.
Dr. Brailer pointed out that there had been frequent calls for a standardized insurance billing form, which would sharply reduce duplication and paperwork costs and "make patient management of these as simple as online checking."
But, he said, "this has not gone beyond the wishful-thinking level because the changeover would cost a lot."
Mitch Mayne, 38, is a marketing executive in San Francisco who considers himself basically healthy.
Mr. Mayne went to his doctor three times between March and June for the same thing: recurring bronchitis.
Yet the explanation of benefits statements he received from his insurer after each office visit differed drastically in the amount he owed, varying from $10.66 to $90, with no explanation of the services provided.
"What did I do on June 27 that was different than what I did on April 6 that was different than what I did on March 4?" Mr. Mayne asked.
When he calls for an explanation of the E.O.B.'s, he said, the most tangible result he sees is a new card in the mail with no indication of the amount he owes as a co-payment printed on the card.
"I'm paying through the nose for this premium, and when I go to the doctor it's a roll of the dice as to whether or not they'll pay it," said Mr. Mayne. "It seems like it depends on the mood of whoever happens to be doing the claim that day, or on the phases of the moon."
Mr. Mayne recently grew so fed up that he decided to try to beat the bronchitis on his own. "I can't deal with all this paperwork," he recalled saying. "It's just too much of a hassle." That turned out to be a mistake. Mr. Mayne became so sick that he finally relented and saw his doctor.
What if something truly catastrophic should happen to the state of his health?
"Oh wow, I hadn't even thought of that," Mr. Mayne said. "That's actually a pretty scary proposition. If I can't manage my health care as a healthy individual, the prospect of trying to manage it and be really sick at the same time - I don't know that I could do it."
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Will OEA also write the Actives' speeches for them & send a limo to pick them up? How about holding their hands, too, as they deliver their speeches?
OEA tries to tell actives about the current "affordable" hc that is offered to STRS retirees in this info that they offer active teachers! Gee, I can't see anything mentioned about spousal rates and affordability! Wonder why??? I also don't see any comparison to the rates that OPERS offers to their retirees. Wonder why? Once again, they attempt to sell a "half-truth" to their membership. Even at that, a "half-truth" is really "pushing the envelope." Click on the link below for a chuckle.
John, a Proud CORE member
http://www.ohea.org/documents/OCT2005SUBMATLOW.pdf
(Text also printed below)
OHIO SCHOOLS OCTOBER 2005
SUBJECT MATTER
STRS and HCA launch member education, engagement campaign
This fall, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) and the Health Care Advocates for STRS (HCA) will jointly host a series of meetings with contributing members, employers and retirees in the STRS pension system to discuss the future of STRS retiree health care. The education and engagement campaign is a component of the health care strategic plan adopted by the STRS Board in May.
The STRS and HCA plans were finalized at the September STRS Board meeting during which 17 OEA and OEA-R representatives spoke in support of the continuation of affordable STRS health care for current and future retirees, the need for a dedicated revenue stream to fund retiree health care benefits, and continuation of the 35-year formula established in SB 190.
“I am here to ask members of this new STRS Board to consider the huge impact a sound retirement plan with an affordable health care package will have in retaining younger teachers in our profession so that they can gain the expertise and vision necessary to spend their career with our children for the duration,” OEA member Maureen Reedy, a teacher in Upper Arlington and 2002 Ohio Teacher of the Year, told board members.
“Those of us in education for the long haul know that every day we are investing in our students’ lives and our society’s future by choosing to stay in the profession. We have always looked to our retirement as one of the long-term financial benefits in a career that does not have financial parity with other professionals with similar educational backgrounds,” Reedy explained.
“Teachers work every day to build our students’ knowledge and prepare them for a thinking, participatory role in a democratic society. We are here to ask the Board to continue its commitment to the democratic process of surveying active and retired members, their employers, health care advocates and professional organizations about possible solutions to the retiree health care problem.”
“STRS has a long history of serving teachers,” Mark Meuser, president of the Gahanna Jefferson Education Association, told the board members and audience. “It exists for the benefit of those members of society who have dedicated their lives to public education. I know that the STRS Board has several new members. I trust that these new members share with the experienced members not only a sense of duty to be fiscally responsible, but also an obligation to protect the interests of those for whom STRS was created.”
OEA-R member Len Codispoti said that he has watched as the STRS and HCA have struggled to find a solution to the problems of providing health care that maintains quality care and yet holds down costs. “I am proud of the health care that STRS has been able to provide to this point and wish to see it maintained. These benefits continue to require larger and larger portions of our resources and we must face the fact that action must be taken, now, to prevent us from running out of the resources needed to provide these benefits.”
I am here to ask members to consider the huge impact a sound retirement plan with an affordable health care package will have in retaining younger teachers so that they can gain the expertise and vision necessary to spend their career with our children for the duration. MAUREEN REEDY
In his testimony, Scott DiMauro, president of the Worthington Education Association and president of Central OEA/NEA, said, “Quality health care is not free. While many costs associated with our nation’s health care system seem to be spiraling out of control, there are measures that can be undertaken in the area of hospital and physician procurement, creative utilization of prescription drug formularies, and proactive measures to promote healthy lifestyles and wiser consumerism, that will help contain costs to the extent it is possible to do so.”
“Any solution to the health care challenge must involve long-term, sustainable strategies that involve both active and retired members sharing in both the costs and benefits of change,” DiMauro noted.
The STRS and HCA campaign speaks to the concerns raised by Association members through its primary goals:
1. To educate members about the economic realities of health care and explain that employees will need to plan for the increasing cost of health care.
2. To assess the level of support among members for a legislative proposal to create a dedicated revenue stream for retiree health care. This revenue stream would be funded by an increase in the employee and employer contribution to the retirement system.
The purpose of the engagement campaign is not only to share information about health care with STRS contributing members and retirees, but also to gather meaningful feedback regarding members’ thoughts about the future of the STRS health care benefit. The campaign will begin with presentations to leadership groups such as the OEA Executive Committee. Throughout October and November, regional presentations will be made across the state. Additionally, STRS will provide a presentation that members can view online and will distribute related printed materials.
“I am excited about the partnership between HCA and STRS to address the issue of health care,” says OEA Secretary-Treasurer Bill Leibensperger.
“We need to educate our shared constituencies about the economic realities of health care and we need to assess the level of support for creating the dedicated revenue stream that is needed. We need to gather feedback and generate broad consensus around a sound proposal for funding these benefits. This type of change will require a legislative change, so we will all need to be together and vocal in our advocacy. It’s a daunting task, but I continue to believe that as Ohio’s educators we can help shape the future."
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Now it’s time for leaders and members from across the state to come forward and help the new STRS Board understand that these concerns really do represent everyone. Please plan to attend or send representatives to future STRS Board meetings to provide either testimony, or presence or both. OEA Vice President Pat Frost- Brooks (frostbro@ohea.org) and OEA Secretary-Treasurer Bill Leibensperger (leibensp@ohea.org) will help with the logistics of your participation and testimony development. Please email both officers to indicate your interest.
Following are the board meeting dates for the remainder of the 2005-2006 school year. Please try to attend the October, November and December meetings especially.
October 20 and 21
November 17 and 18
December 8 and 9
January 19 and 20
February 16 and 17
March 9 and 10
April 20 and 21
May 18 and 19
June 15 and 16
Public participation is held at 1 p.m. on the Thursday meeting day. Please make it a priority to ensure an OEA presence at each of these meetings.
(I can't help wondering about OEA's patronizing, paternalistic approach, when they offer "help with the logistics of your participation and testimony development" [euphemisms for "we will see that you get to Columbus" and "we will write your speech FOR you"?]. I have always regarded Ohio's teachers as highly intelligent, very well educated and articulate individuals, quite capable of thinking, writing and speaking for themselves [and also getting themselves to Columbus]. KB)
John, a Proud CORE member
http://www.ohea.org/documents/OCT2005SUBMATLOW.pdf
(Text also printed below)
OHIO SCHOOLS OCTOBER 2005
SUBJECT MATTER
STRS and HCA launch member education, engagement campaign
This fall, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) and the Health Care Advocates for STRS (HCA) will jointly host a series of meetings with contributing members, employers and retirees in the STRS pension system to discuss the future of STRS retiree health care. The education and engagement campaign is a component of the health care strategic plan adopted by the STRS Board in May.
The STRS and HCA plans were finalized at the September STRS Board meeting during which 17 OEA and OEA-R representatives spoke in support of the continuation of affordable STRS health care for current and future retirees, the need for a dedicated revenue stream to fund retiree health care benefits, and continuation of the 35-year formula established in SB 190.
“I am here to ask members of this new STRS Board to consider the huge impact a sound retirement plan with an affordable health care package will have in retaining younger teachers in our profession so that they can gain the expertise and vision necessary to spend their career with our children for the duration,” OEA member Maureen Reedy, a teacher in Upper Arlington and 2002 Ohio Teacher of the Year, told board members.
“Those of us in education for the long haul know that every day we are investing in our students’ lives and our society’s future by choosing to stay in the profession. We have always looked to our retirement as one of the long-term financial benefits in a career that does not have financial parity with other professionals with similar educational backgrounds,” Reedy explained.
“Teachers work every day to build our students’ knowledge and prepare them for a thinking, participatory role in a democratic society. We are here to ask the Board to continue its commitment to the democratic process of surveying active and retired members, their employers, health care advocates and professional organizations about possible solutions to the retiree health care problem.”
“STRS has a long history of serving teachers,” Mark Meuser, president of the Gahanna Jefferson Education Association, told the board members and audience. “It exists for the benefit of those members of society who have dedicated their lives to public education. I know that the STRS Board has several new members. I trust that these new members share with the experienced members not only a sense of duty to be fiscally responsible, but also an obligation to protect the interests of those for whom STRS was created.”
OEA-R member Len Codispoti said that he has watched as the STRS and HCA have struggled to find a solution to the problems of providing health care that maintains quality care and yet holds down costs. “I am proud of the health care that STRS has been able to provide to this point and wish to see it maintained. These benefits continue to require larger and larger portions of our resources and we must face the fact that action must be taken, now, to prevent us from running out of the resources needed to provide these benefits.”
I am here to ask members to consider the huge impact a sound retirement plan with an affordable health care package will have in retaining younger teachers so that they can gain the expertise and vision necessary to spend their career with our children for the duration. MAUREEN REEDY
In his testimony, Scott DiMauro, president of the Worthington Education Association and president of Central OEA/NEA, said, “Quality health care is not free. While many costs associated with our nation’s health care system seem to be spiraling out of control, there are measures that can be undertaken in the area of hospital and physician procurement, creative utilization of prescription drug formularies, and proactive measures to promote healthy lifestyles and wiser consumerism, that will help contain costs to the extent it is possible to do so.”
“Any solution to the health care challenge must involve long-term, sustainable strategies that involve both active and retired members sharing in both the costs and benefits of change,” DiMauro noted.
The STRS and HCA campaign speaks to the concerns raised by Association members through its primary goals:
1. To educate members about the economic realities of health care and explain that employees will need to plan for the increasing cost of health care.
2. To assess the level of support among members for a legislative proposal to create a dedicated revenue stream for retiree health care. This revenue stream would be funded by an increase in the employee and employer contribution to the retirement system.
The purpose of the engagement campaign is not only to share information about health care with STRS contributing members and retirees, but also to gather meaningful feedback regarding members’ thoughts about the future of the STRS health care benefit. The campaign will begin with presentations to leadership groups such as the OEA Executive Committee. Throughout October and November, regional presentations will be made across the state. Additionally, STRS will provide a presentation that members can view online and will distribute related printed materials.
“I am excited about the partnership between HCA and STRS to address the issue of health care,” says OEA Secretary-Treasurer Bill Leibensperger.
“We need to educate our shared constituencies about the economic realities of health care and we need to assess the level of support for creating the dedicated revenue stream that is needed. We need to gather feedback and generate broad consensus around a sound proposal for funding these benefits. This type of change will require a legislative change, so we will all need to be together and vocal in our advocacy. It’s a daunting task, but I continue to believe that as Ohio’s educators we can help shape the future."
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Now it’s time for leaders and members from across the state to come forward and help the new STRS Board understand that these concerns really do represent everyone. Please plan to attend or send representatives to future STRS Board meetings to provide either testimony, or presence or both. OEA Vice President Pat Frost- Brooks (frostbro@ohea.org) and OEA Secretary-Treasurer Bill Leibensperger (leibensp@ohea.org) will help with the logistics of your participation and testimony development. Please email both officers to indicate your interest.
Following are the board meeting dates for the remainder of the 2005-2006 school year. Please try to attend the October, November and December meetings especially.
October 20 and 21
November 17 and 18
December 8 and 9
January 19 and 20
February 16 and 17
March 9 and 10
April 20 and 21
May 18 and 19
June 15 and 16
Public participation is held at 1 p.m. on the Thursday meeting day. Please make it a priority to ensure an OEA presence at each of these meetings.
(I can't help wondering about OEA's patronizing, paternalistic approach, when they offer "help with the logistics of your participation and testimony development" [euphemisms for "we will see that you get to Columbus" and "we will write your speech FOR you"?]. I have always regarded Ohio's teachers as highly intelligent, very well educated and articulate individuals, quite capable of thinking, writing and speaking for themselves [and also getting themselves to Columbus]. KB)
October 13: More viewpoints on public speaking at STRS Board meetings
From Board member Dr. Stephen Buser:
Dear Dennis and others:
I cannot speak for other Board members. Nevertheless, I assume that we all understand the significance of the opportunity for members to address the Board, and that we all want to work toward maintaining a viable structure. With respect to Chairman Brown's statement, I think he clearly deserves the benefit of any doubt at this point. Chairman Brown was asked to respond on a particular issue, and he did so by noting that the full Board will be able to explore permanent solutions at the February retreat. I do not interpret his willingness to respond as a desire to preempt the Board as a whole. Nor do I interpret his response as a decision to rule out temporary solutions to problems that might arise prior to the February retreat.
On the contrary, I am only aware of one prior instance in which a problem arose with the schedule of speakers. That occurred at the last meeting, and Chairman Brown took steps to address that issue to the benefit of members in general. Thus, while I confess that I do not as yet fully understand the nature of the current issue, I have every confidence that both Chairman Brown, and the Board as a whole, will continue to work in the best interests of members, even if that means adopting yet another stop gap measure pending our search for more permanent solutions.
For example, one advantage of the current system is that we have been alerted in advance to a potential problem with the schedule of speakers for next week's meeting. If indeed we are confronted with an unusually large number of requests from a single organization, I can imagine that the Board or the Chair might advise that organization that their voice could be heard more effectively, and perhaps with greater sympathy, if the organization were to appoint one, or perhaps two representatives to speak for the group as a whole in order to allow other speakers to address the Board as well. If such voluntary efforts fail, I can imagine that the Board would want to consider another temporary measure, as it did at the last meeting, and perhaps even reschedule the issue of speaker schedules for a meeting prior to February if needed.
In sum, pending evidence to the contrary, I continue to believe that both Chairman Brown and the Board as a whole will continue to act in the interest of members on this and other issues. We might not get every issue right every time. However, based on my limited observations to date, I think we have all earned respect for our continuing efforts on behalf of members.
Steve
P.S. Please note that I will be out of town until next Tuesday and will not have access to email. Thus, if anyone expects me to respond further on this or other issues, please do not interpret my silence as indifference.
From Board member Conni Ramser (written to Molly Janczyk):
Hi! Having finished parent conferences last night and being back in at my usual 6AM time, I may not make a bunch of sense. However, that said, I will try to be coherent.
The public speaks session, from my understanding, is to allow members to address the board with issues of interest/concern. I am not concerned with whether they are active, retired, or both.
What the individuals have to say is more of interest. I appreciate printed remarks, so that I can go back and more thoroughly reflect on the message at a later time. So for me, a letter is as valuable as a speech.
So, that's my 2 cents, for what it is worth.
Conni Ramser
From Molly Janczyk:
Thank you, Conni, But how do you feel about folks who wish to speak and possibly being shut out after driving hours to attend. All speakers need know they have equal opportunity.
From Jim Kimmel:
Ms Ramser:
It should also be of concern to you that more than one point of view be heard. If the OEA people (active or retired) use up all the allotted slots then CORE and others cannot have their say. A letter may be useful but it should be obvious that a letter or email read in the privacy of one's home or office cannot possibly have the impact that a speech made by an individual before the assembled STRS Board would have. A letter is private but a speech is there for all to hear. And it might be difficult to get a specific letter read by one of the board members at a board meeting, especially one that criticizes or asks probing questions that may need to be asked. During Mr. Dyer's regime HE opened board members' letters personally, even when not addressed to him. Not only was that a federal offense but one wonders how many letters ever even made it to the board members at all. While I doubt that is happening now the retirees would certainly feel more confident in future board decisions if it were clear that speech opportunities are not monopolized by the OEA,CORE, or any other single group. I really wonder if this is not a tactic of OEA (your neighbor across the street) to monopolize things and prevent CORE people from having their say. Please try to create a situation that is fair to all and expresses the retirees' true sentiments. For example, a recent series of OEA speakers said to the Board that the retirees were so glad "STRS has continued to provide 'affordable' health coverage." Do you REALLY believe that?
So we need more than one point of view, don't you think? CORE never tried to monopolize the Public Speaking time, as far as I can tell. How often did OEA and other groups like ORTA or others even ask to speak until recently? Perhaps some had other ways of communicating with past Board members that are no longer available. For CORE and individual retirees the public speech (3 minute limit) was the ONLY venue in which we could be sure board members could be reached. E-mails were returned, letters opened by Dyer, etc. Just be fair so all can be heard - including all points of view.
Thanks,
James O. Kimmel
Proud CORE Member
STRS Retiree
Dear Dennis and others:
I cannot speak for other Board members. Nevertheless, I assume that we all understand the significance of the opportunity for members to address the Board, and that we all want to work toward maintaining a viable structure. With respect to Chairman Brown's statement, I think he clearly deserves the benefit of any doubt at this point. Chairman Brown was asked to respond on a particular issue, and he did so by noting that the full Board will be able to explore permanent solutions at the February retreat. I do not interpret his willingness to respond as a desire to preempt the Board as a whole. Nor do I interpret his response as a decision to rule out temporary solutions to problems that might arise prior to the February retreat.
On the contrary, I am only aware of one prior instance in which a problem arose with the schedule of speakers. That occurred at the last meeting, and Chairman Brown took steps to address that issue to the benefit of members in general. Thus, while I confess that I do not as yet fully understand the nature of the current issue, I have every confidence that both Chairman Brown, and the Board as a whole, will continue to work in the best interests of members, even if that means adopting yet another stop gap measure pending our search for more permanent solutions.
For example, one advantage of the current system is that we have been alerted in advance to a potential problem with the schedule of speakers for next week's meeting. If indeed we are confronted with an unusually large number of requests from a single organization, I can imagine that the Board or the Chair might advise that organization that their voice could be heard more effectively, and perhaps with greater sympathy, if the organization were to appoint one, or perhaps two representatives to speak for the group as a whole in order to allow other speakers to address the Board as well. If such voluntary efforts fail, I can imagine that the Board would want to consider another temporary measure, as it did at the last meeting, and perhaps even reschedule the issue of speaker schedules for a meeting prior to February if needed.
In sum, pending evidence to the contrary, I continue to believe that both Chairman Brown and the Board as a whole will continue to act in the interest of members on this and other issues. We might not get every issue right every time. However, based on my limited observations to date, I think we have all earned respect for our continuing efforts on behalf of members.
Steve
P.S. Please note that I will be out of town until next Tuesday and will not have access to email. Thus, if anyone expects me to respond further on this or other issues, please do not interpret my silence as indifference.
From Board member Conni Ramser (written to Molly Janczyk):
Hi! Having finished parent conferences last night and being back in at my usual 6AM time, I may not make a bunch of sense. However, that said, I will try to be coherent.
The public speaks session, from my understanding, is to allow members to address the board with issues of interest/concern. I am not concerned with whether they are active, retired, or both.
What the individuals have to say is more of interest. I appreciate printed remarks, so that I can go back and more thoroughly reflect on the message at a later time. So for me, a letter is as valuable as a speech.
So, that's my 2 cents, for what it is worth.
Conni Ramser
From Molly Janczyk:
Thank you, Conni, But how do you feel about folks who wish to speak and possibly being shut out after driving hours to attend. All speakers need know they have equal opportunity.
From Jim Kimmel:
Ms Ramser:
It should also be of concern to you that more than one point of view be heard. If the OEA people (active or retired) use up all the allotted slots then CORE and others cannot have their say. A letter may be useful but it should be obvious that a letter or email read in the privacy of one's home or office cannot possibly have the impact that a speech made by an individual before the assembled STRS Board would have. A letter is private but a speech is there for all to hear. And it might be difficult to get a specific letter read by one of the board members at a board meeting, especially one that criticizes or asks probing questions that may need to be asked. During Mr. Dyer's regime HE opened board members' letters personally, even when not addressed to him. Not only was that a federal offense but one wonders how many letters ever even made it to the board members at all. While I doubt that is happening now the retirees would certainly feel more confident in future board decisions if it were clear that speech opportunities are not monopolized by the OEA,CORE, or any other single group. I really wonder if this is not a tactic of OEA (your neighbor across the street) to monopolize things and prevent CORE people from having their say. Please try to create a situation that is fair to all and expresses the retirees' true sentiments. For example, a recent series of OEA speakers said to the Board that the retirees were so glad "STRS has continued to provide 'affordable' health coverage." Do you REALLY believe that?
So we need more than one point of view, don't you think? CORE never tried to monopolize the Public Speaking time, as far as I can tell. How often did OEA and other groups like ORTA or others even ask to speak until recently? Perhaps some had other ways of communicating with past Board members that are no longer available. For CORE and individual retirees the public speech (3 minute limit) was the ONLY venue in which we could be sure board members could be reached. E-mails were returned, letters opened by Dyer, etc. Just be fair so all can be heard - including all points of view.
Thanks,
James O. Kimmel
Proud CORE Member
STRS Retiree
Open season on people with Medicare
From Suddenly Senior
ACT NOW: State Attorney Generals Must Step Forward to Protect Consumers
Asclepios
October 13, 2005 . Volume 5, Issue 41
It is open season on people with Medicare for companies chasing profit from the new Medicare drug benefit. The companies, large and small, have a key strategic goal as the marketing of hundreds of drug plans blankets the nation: market share.
As consumers struggle to decipher the complex benefit plans being sold by scores of profit-seeking companies, these companies are launching multimillion-dollar campaigns to sell their products. The companies-UnitedHealth, Aetna, Humana, Medco and many more-see billions of dollars of sales at stake.
Even truthful marketing by the companies will not educate consumers on what to do. Marketing, by its nature, emphasizes what will appeal to a prospective buyer. A plan with low premiums will trumpet the premium cost in its marketing; you will have to search hard to find any mention of corresponding excessive prescription copayments.
You will also have to look hard to find any mention of the plans' gaps in coverage-the infamous doughnut holes-in these companies' marketing materials. Wrongly, the federal government is allowing misleading promotional materials to invade the homes of 43 million Americans with Medicare.
Worse yet, the White House and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are playing a role in misleading people with Medicare as well-sometimes by design, sometimes by human error.
The administration just spent millions of taxpayer dollars to distribute an insert in Parade magazine that ran in hundreds of Sunday newspapers across the country. The insert was supposed to describe, in an educational and fair manner, the standard Medicare drug benefit.
However-whoops-the CMS insert neglected to even mention the "doughnut hole"-the nearly $3,000 gap in coverage whereby people will keep paying plan premiums but will receive no assistance paying for their medicine. That is propaganda, not education.
And then there is the mailing of 43 million copies of CMS's annual handbook, Medicare & You. It also contained a huge error, but unlike the purposeful propaganda that has been issued by the administration, it seemed to be an honest error. Still, people will be hurt if they rely on the official advice that low-income people receiving the so-called Extra Help Program's subsidy can sign up for any Part D plan without paying unaffordable premiums.
CMS and other federal agencies should be in the vanguard of protecting people with Medicare from the misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct of the marketplace. Up to now, the Bush administration looks more like an aider and abettor, not a protector from the unscrupulous.
In the months ahead, commission-based insurance brokers will be driving the national campaign to enroll people in the competing drug plans: they will have every financial incentive to maximize enrollment in the plan they are selling. They will have little incentive to help consumers make good choices from the array of confusing benefit options.
CMS, in its zeal to make the Medicare drug market profitable to plan sponsors, left the door wide-open to telemarketing scams. Salespeople working for the insurers have been authorized by CMS to call people with Medicare at home from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Even AARP, itself a large sponsor of profitable drug plans, pleaded with the Bush administration to bar telemarketing.
Yes, it will be open season on a vulnerable and often bewildered market of older Americans and those with disabilities. But, hey, there's money to be made.
There will be many good people at CMS, far below the ideological zealotry zone that conceived the convoluted structure of the Medicare drug benefit, who will try to protect people with Medicare from harm. But to trust the political leadership in Washington to choose the people's interest over the commercial interests of the drug and insurance industries is to trust the fox to guard the hen house.
State attorney generals, Republicans and Democrats, must step up as guardians and enforcers of consumer protections. They must shield consumers from misleading promotions, whether in the form of government propaganda, prescription drug plan marketing abuses or outright fraudulent activity.
Click here (http://www.medicarerights.org/action) to send a message to Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, the chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Consumer Protection Committee.
Medical Record
"With millions of seniors eligible for Medicare's new Prescription Drug Coverage Plan, you can bet the bad actors are waiting to pounce," said National Association of Attorneys General President Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana (" President's Message: Medicare Rollout Raises Concerns for Fraud Against Seniors (http://www.naag.org/news/presmsg-20051001.php) ," National Association of Attorneys General, October 2005).
Telemarketing scams are estimated to cheat one out of six consumers every year, costing Americans $40 billion a year. And 80 percent of the time, Americans over 65 are the primary target of these crimes (" Corzine Introduces Legislation to Ban Medicare Rx Telemarketing (http://corzine.senate.gov/press_office/record.cfm?id=246688) ," Press Release from Office of Senator Jon S. Corzine, September 2005).
Private plan representatives are allowed to make unsolicited phone calls-"cold calls"-but plans must honor the National Do-Not-Call Registry and "do not call again" requests. Private plans are prohibited from making door-to-door sales calls or sending unsolicited e-mails (" Final Part D Marketing Guidelines (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pdps/PrtDPlnMrktngGdlns.asp) ," Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, August 2005).
People with Medicare often make the decision to join Medicare HMOs based on direct sales approaches, advertisements and word-of-mouth, not on a careful comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of enrollment (" Medicare HMO Marketing in the Information Age (http://www.medicarerights.org/maincontentpolicyhmomarketing.html) ," Medicare Rights Center, January 1999).
Fast Relief: What You Can Do
Let everyone-your colleagues, friends, families-know how we can improve the Medicare prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare and American taxpayers. Help us build a national network of concerned citizens who want to create the Medicare prescription drug benefit Americans deserve.
Click here (http://www.asclepios.kintera.org/) to help build a national campaign for a real Medicare prescription drug benefit!
(Note from KB: Here's the buzz I keep hearing: if you are an STRS retiree on Medicare, you should NOT sign up for Medicare Part D. The STRS plan is as good as, if not better than, Medicare D. Be sure you do your homework.)
ACT NOW: State Attorney Generals Must Step Forward to Protect Consumers
Asclepios
October 13, 2005 . Volume 5, Issue 41
It is open season on people with Medicare for companies chasing profit from the new Medicare drug benefit. The companies, large and small, have a key strategic goal as the marketing of hundreds of drug plans blankets the nation: market share.
As consumers struggle to decipher the complex benefit plans being sold by scores of profit-seeking companies, these companies are launching multimillion-dollar campaigns to sell their products. The companies-UnitedHealth, Aetna, Humana, Medco and many more-see billions of dollars of sales at stake.
Even truthful marketing by the companies will not educate consumers on what to do. Marketing, by its nature, emphasizes what will appeal to a prospective buyer. A plan with low premiums will trumpet the premium cost in its marketing; you will have to search hard to find any mention of corresponding excessive prescription copayments.
You will also have to look hard to find any mention of the plans' gaps in coverage-the infamous doughnut holes-in these companies' marketing materials. Wrongly, the federal government is allowing misleading promotional materials to invade the homes of 43 million Americans with Medicare.
Worse yet, the White House and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are playing a role in misleading people with Medicare as well-sometimes by design, sometimes by human error.
The administration just spent millions of taxpayer dollars to distribute an insert in Parade magazine that ran in hundreds of Sunday newspapers across the country. The insert was supposed to describe, in an educational and fair manner, the standard Medicare drug benefit.
However-whoops-the CMS insert neglected to even mention the "doughnut hole"-the nearly $3,000 gap in coverage whereby people will keep paying plan premiums but will receive no assistance paying for their medicine. That is propaganda, not education.
And then there is the mailing of 43 million copies of CMS's annual handbook, Medicare & You. It also contained a huge error, but unlike the purposeful propaganda that has been issued by the administration, it seemed to be an honest error. Still, people will be hurt if they rely on the official advice that low-income people receiving the so-called Extra Help Program's subsidy can sign up for any Part D plan without paying unaffordable premiums.
CMS and other federal agencies should be in the vanguard of protecting people with Medicare from the misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct of the marketplace. Up to now, the Bush administration looks more like an aider and abettor, not a protector from the unscrupulous.
In the months ahead, commission-based insurance brokers will be driving the national campaign to enroll people in the competing drug plans: they will have every financial incentive to maximize enrollment in the plan they are selling. They will have little incentive to help consumers make good choices from the array of confusing benefit options.
CMS, in its zeal to make the Medicare drug market profitable to plan sponsors, left the door wide-open to telemarketing scams. Salespeople working for the insurers have been authorized by CMS to call people with Medicare at home from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Even AARP, itself a large sponsor of profitable drug plans, pleaded with the Bush administration to bar telemarketing.
Yes, it will be open season on a vulnerable and often bewildered market of older Americans and those with disabilities. But, hey, there's money to be made.
There will be many good people at CMS, far below the ideological zealotry zone that conceived the convoluted structure of the Medicare drug benefit, who will try to protect people with Medicare from harm. But to trust the political leadership in Washington to choose the people's interest over the commercial interests of the drug and insurance industries is to trust the fox to guard the hen house.
State attorney generals, Republicans and Democrats, must step up as guardians and enforcers of consumer protections. They must shield consumers from misleading promotions, whether in the form of government propaganda, prescription drug plan marketing abuses or outright fraudulent activity.
Click here (http://www.medicarerights.org/action) to send a message to Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, the chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Consumer Protection Committee.
Medical Record
"With millions of seniors eligible for Medicare's new Prescription Drug Coverage Plan, you can bet the bad actors are waiting to pounce," said National Association of Attorneys General President Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana (" President's Message: Medicare Rollout Raises Concerns for Fraud Against Seniors (http://www.naag.org/news/presmsg-20051001.php) ," National Association of Attorneys General, October 2005).
Telemarketing scams are estimated to cheat one out of six consumers every year, costing Americans $40 billion a year. And 80 percent of the time, Americans over 65 are the primary target of these crimes (" Corzine Introduces Legislation to Ban Medicare Rx Telemarketing (http://corzine.senate.gov/press_office/record.cfm?id=246688) ," Press Release from Office of Senator Jon S. Corzine, September 2005).
Private plan representatives are allowed to make unsolicited phone calls-"cold calls"-but plans must honor the National Do-Not-Call Registry and "do not call again" requests. Private plans are prohibited from making door-to-door sales calls or sending unsolicited e-mails (" Final Part D Marketing Guidelines (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pdps/PrtDPlnMrktngGdlns.asp) ," Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, August 2005).
People with Medicare often make the decision to join Medicare HMOs based on direct sales approaches, advertisements and word-of-mouth, not on a careful comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of enrollment (" Medicare HMO Marketing in the Information Age (http://www.medicarerights.org/maincontentpolicyhmomarketing.html) ," Medicare Rights Center, January 1999).
Fast Relief: What You Can Do
Let everyone-your colleagues, friends, families-know how we can improve the Medicare prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare and American taxpayers. Help us build a national network of concerned citizens who want to create the Medicare prescription drug benefit Americans deserve.
Click here (http://www.asclepios.kintera.org/) to help build a national campaign for a real Medicare prescription drug benefit!
(Note from KB: Here's the buzz I keep hearing: if you are an STRS retiree on Medicare, you should NOT sign up for Medicare Part D. The STRS plan is as good as, if not better than, Medicare D. Be sure you do your homework.)
PA-STRS/PERS figures: could this be STRS-Ohio?
The situation in Pennsylvania makes one wonder, if a similar situation is occurring at STRS and if this is the reason it is so difficult to get information of substance out of STRS.
Nancy Hamant
10/13/05
Forwarded Message:
Subj: PA-STRS/PERS figures don't lie, but ....? OR, Creative Bookkeeping 101 in the Keystone State?
Date: 10/13/2005 4:16:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: John Curry
Pa. pension data leave questions about returns
"By the end of last year, the funds had returned about $3 billion of the total investment, according to the retirement system's annual reports to pensioners and the General Assembly. More than 70 percent of the fund's private-equity and venture-capital managers - most of which were hired during the investment boom years of 1997 to 2001 - had yet to pay back the state's investment, let alone realize any profit."
"How does the teachers' retirement system - like other buyers and managers of alternative investments - report such positive numbers? They count not just the cash they actually collect, but also estimated profits from investments that have not yet been liquidated."
By Joseph N. DiStefano
Inquirer Staff Writer
As pension funds shift more assets to "alternative" investments that don't trade on stock or bond markets, it's getting harder to tell what they're really worth - or how big a subsidy they'll need to provide pensions to future retirees.
For example, take the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System, which, at The Inquirer's request, has disclosed some of the performance data it uses in estimating its profits from nearly 100 private-equity and venture-capital funds.
The system has invested about one-tenth of its assets, or $5 billion, with private-equity and venture-capital firms in the last 10 years.
By the end of last year, the funds had returned about $3 billion of the total investment, according to the retirement system's annual reports to pensioners and the General Assembly. More than 70 percent of the fund's private-equity and venture-capital managers - most of which were hired during the investment boom years of 1997 to 2001 - had yet to pay back the state's investment, let alone realize any profit.
Yet the retirement system claims total annual returns from these investments of about 6 percent a year since 1999, 8 percent a year since 2001, and 21 percent in 2004 alone. That is roughly two to three times what the system's U.S. stock investments returned during those periods, and far above its U.S. stock benchmark, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index. New Jersey is also considering investing in private equity.
How does the teachers' retirement system - like other buyers and managers of alternative investments - report such positive numbers? They count not just the cash they actually collect, but also estimated profits from investments that have not yet been liquidated.
Because no one knows how much those investments in small and often unproven companies will earn, the system relies on estimates from the outside managers who make the investments; the managers calculate an "internal rate of return" based on their best guess of what the investments might be worth someday, using, for example, the values of publicly traded companies in similar industries.
The teachers' pension system is not as big a user of alternative investments as the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, which pays pensions to retired state workers. But the teachers' system is more open about the performance of dozens of managers it hires to handle the funds.
The teachers' system uses a combination of investment profits and subsidies from local school districts, state government, and deductions from teachers' paychecks to pay pensions to more than 150,000 retired school employees.
The more the retirement systems make from investments, the less they need in subsidies from state taxpayers. For the teachers' system, local school districts and property-tax-payers help foot the bill. That makes investment performance a matter of public concern as subsidy levels are calculated each year.
Though it relies on managers' estimates of the value of each alternative investment portfolio and uses them to calculate the portfolio's overall performance, the teachers' system does not disclose the underlying data in its yearly reports to pensioners and state legislators.
The system reports assets, payouts and fees, but not each manager's performance - let alone the names of the companies or properties in which alternative managers invest.
"We don't get many requests" for manager performance data from pension-fund members, and virtually none from legislators, said Evelyn Tatkovski, spokeswoman for the teachers' retirement system. She added that the system considers not only how profitable alternative investments may be, but also the benefits of "diversifying our investment portfolio" beyond stocks and bonds.
But the teachers' system has provided to The Inquirer an estimate of the value of its remaining investments for 78 of its 96 venture-capital and private-equity managers. For 18 others, the system would not provide the estimated value.
In most cases, those 18 investments date to 1999 or earlier, and managers have already sold most of their assets, Tatkovski said. Still, the teachers' system wants to keep the remaining value confidential because "release of this information would harm the partnerships by indirectly providing confidential information" on the "small number of properties [or] portfolio companies" remaining in each fund, she said.
Steve Lisson, publisher of the Texas-based private-equity newsletter InsiderVC.com, questioned the teachers' system's basis for not disclosing estimated values.
"By that point in a fund's life, the investments are mature and their valuations [are typically] well-known," Lisson said. "They are furiously trying to exit the investment, shopping it and its valuation to any greater fool with a pulse."
Lisson added, "Fund managers love to brag about returns in the good times, and then complain about confidentiality when they're not performing well."
Tatkovski said the teachers' retirement system kept that data secret partly because it believes that is a good policy, and partly because some investment managers ask it to do so.
Among the remaining estimated investment values that the system will not release, some are from funds that made money during the bull-market years of the 1990s. Edison Venture Partners, of Princeton, has returned more than $52 million from investments in 1991 and 1994 that totaled $25 million. TL Ventures, of Wayne, turned $60 million, invested in 1992 and 1997, into a total of $83 million in cash. The teachers' system will not say what either firm's remaining investments are worth.
Other investments whose current value the teachers' system will not disclose have so far been money-losers. The teachers put $56 million into investment firm Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin's Sunrise Investment Partnership in 1998, but had only $5 million to show for it at the end of last year. The system put $180 million into Deutsche European Partners IV in 1999, and was still $44 million short of showing a profit as of Dec. 31.
The teachers' system also provided estimates of the value of investments held by 25 real estate funds, withholding the information for certain funds managed by Lazard Freres Real Estate Investors and Whitehall Street Real Estate Funds.
The system says its overall real estate portfolio, which equals around 5 percent of its total assets (not counting real estate investment trusts, which trade on the stock market), has been more profitable than any other asset class in the last five years, returning an average of more than 12 percent, and rising to 25 percent in 2004.
Last year, the two systems paid a total of $386 million to more than 300 private firms that manage state investments. Of that total, $260 million was paid to managers of private equity, venture capital, real estate, hedge funds (at the state employees' system), and other alternative-investment managers, which accounted for less than one-third of the systems' combined investments.
Keeping Data Confidential
The Public School Employees' Retirement System and the State Employees' Retirement System support legislation that would confirm their power to suspend the state's Right to Know law for any money manager and allow them to withhold public access to information on billions of dollars of public investments. Here is what various bills would do:
House Bill 126 would allow the state employees' system to suppress "sensitive investment or financial information" on venture capital, private equity, hedge funds, and other alternative investments if the firms that manage those investments insist on confidentiality. It would also allow the retirement system to delay making data public if it believes it could cause "substantial competitive harm" to any money-management firm hired by the state, or if disclosure might "have an adverse impact on the value of an investment."
Senate Bill 592 would extend similar powers to the public school employees' system, as well as the state employees' system.
House Bill 546 would allow the public school employees' system to delay reporting investment data if "in the reasonable judgement of the board" disclosure could "have an adverse effect on the value" of the investment.
- Joseph N. DiStefano
Nancy Hamant
10/13/05
Forwarded Message:
Subj: PA-STRS/PERS figures don't lie, but ....? OR, Creative Bookkeeping 101 in the Keystone State?
Date: 10/13/2005 4:16:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: John Curry
Pa. pension data leave questions about returns
"By the end of last year, the funds had returned about $3 billion of the total investment, according to the retirement system's annual reports to pensioners and the General Assembly. More than 70 percent of the fund's private-equity and venture-capital managers - most of which were hired during the investment boom years of 1997 to 2001 - had yet to pay back the state's investment, let alone realize any profit."
"How does the teachers' retirement system - like other buyers and managers of alternative investments - report such positive numbers? They count not just the cash they actually collect, but also estimated profits from investments that have not yet been liquidated."
By Joseph N. DiStefano
Inquirer Staff Writer
As pension funds shift more assets to "alternative" investments that don't trade on stock or bond markets, it's getting harder to tell what they're really worth - or how big a subsidy they'll need to provide pensions to future retirees.
For example, take the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System, which, at The Inquirer's request, has disclosed some of the performance data it uses in estimating its profits from nearly 100 private-equity and venture-capital funds.
The system has invested about one-tenth of its assets, or $5 billion, with private-equity and venture-capital firms in the last 10 years.
By the end of last year, the funds had returned about $3 billion of the total investment, according to the retirement system's annual reports to pensioners and the General Assembly. More than 70 percent of the fund's private-equity and venture-capital managers - most of which were hired during the investment boom years of 1997 to 2001 - had yet to pay back the state's investment, let alone realize any profit.
Yet the retirement system claims total annual returns from these investments of about 6 percent a year since 1999, 8 percent a year since 2001, and 21 percent in 2004 alone. That is roughly two to three times what the system's U.S. stock investments returned during those periods, and far above its U.S. stock benchmark, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index. New Jersey is also considering investing in private equity.
How does the teachers' retirement system - like other buyers and managers of alternative investments - report such positive numbers? They count not just the cash they actually collect, but also estimated profits from investments that have not yet been liquidated.
Because no one knows how much those investments in small and often unproven companies will earn, the system relies on estimates from the outside managers who make the investments; the managers calculate an "internal rate of return" based on their best guess of what the investments might be worth someday, using, for example, the values of publicly traded companies in similar industries.
The teachers' pension system is not as big a user of alternative investments as the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, which pays pensions to retired state workers. But the teachers' system is more open about the performance of dozens of managers it hires to handle the funds.
The teachers' system uses a combination of investment profits and subsidies from local school districts, state government, and deductions from teachers' paychecks to pay pensions to more than 150,000 retired school employees.
The more the retirement systems make from investments, the less they need in subsidies from state taxpayers. For the teachers' system, local school districts and property-tax-payers help foot the bill. That makes investment performance a matter of public concern as subsidy levels are calculated each year.
Though it relies on managers' estimates of the value of each alternative investment portfolio and uses them to calculate the portfolio's overall performance, the teachers' system does not disclose the underlying data in its yearly reports to pensioners and state legislators.
The system reports assets, payouts and fees, but not each manager's performance - let alone the names of the companies or properties in which alternative managers invest.
"We don't get many requests" for manager performance data from pension-fund members, and virtually none from legislators, said Evelyn Tatkovski, spokeswoman for the teachers' retirement system. She added that the system considers not only how profitable alternative investments may be, but also the benefits of "diversifying our investment portfolio" beyond stocks and bonds.
But the teachers' system has provided to The Inquirer an estimate of the value of its remaining investments for 78 of its 96 venture-capital and private-equity managers. For 18 others, the system would not provide the estimated value.
In most cases, those 18 investments date to 1999 or earlier, and managers have already sold most of their assets, Tatkovski said. Still, the teachers' system wants to keep the remaining value confidential because "release of this information would harm the partnerships by indirectly providing confidential information" on the "small number of properties [or] portfolio companies" remaining in each fund, she said.
Steve Lisson, publisher of the Texas-based private-equity newsletter InsiderVC.com, questioned the teachers' system's basis for not disclosing estimated values.
"By that point in a fund's life, the investments are mature and their valuations [are typically] well-known," Lisson said. "They are furiously trying to exit the investment, shopping it and its valuation to any greater fool with a pulse."
Lisson added, "Fund managers love to brag about returns in the good times, and then complain about confidentiality when they're not performing well."
Tatkovski said the teachers' retirement system kept that data secret partly because it believes that is a good policy, and partly because some investment managers ask it to do so.
Among the remaining estimated investment values that the system will not release, some are from funds that made money during the bull-market years of the 1990s. Edison Venture Partners, of Princeton, has returned more than $52 million from investments in 1991 and 1994 that totaled $25 million. TL Ventures, of Wayne, turned $60 million, invested in 1992 and 1997, into a total of $83 million in cash. The teachers' system will not say what either firm's remaining investments are worth.
Other investments whose current value the teachers' system will not disclose have so far been money-losers. The teachers put $56 million into investment firm Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin's Sunrise Investment Partnership in 1998, but had only $5 million to show for it at the end of last year. The system put $180 million into Deutsche European Partners IV in 1999, and was still $44 million short of showing a profit as of Dec. 31.
The teachers' system also provided estimates of the value of investments held by 25 real estate funds, withholding the information for certain funds managed by Lazard Freres Real Estate Investors and Whitehall Street Real Estate Funds.
The system says its overall real estate portfolio, which equals around 5 percent of its total assets (not counting real estate investment trusts, which trade on the stock market), has been more profitable than any other asset class in the last five years, returning an average of more than 12 percent, and rising to 25 percent in 2004.
Last year, the two systems paid a total of $386 million to more than 300 private firms that manage state investments. Of that total, $260 million was paid to managers of private equity, venture capital, real estate, hedge funds (at the state employees' system), and other alternative-investment managers, which accounted for less than one-third of the systems' combined investments.
Keeping Data Confidential
The Public School Employees' Retirement System and the State Employees' Retirement System support legislation that would confirm their power to suspend the state's Right to Know law for any money manager and allow them to withhold public access to information on billions of dollars of public investments. Here is what various bills would do:
House Bill 126 would allow the state employees' system to suppress "sensitive investment or financial information" on venture capital, private equity, hedge funds, and other alternative investments if the firms that manage those investments insist on confidentiality. It would also allow the retirement system to delay making data public if it believes it could cause "substantial competitive harm" to any money-management firm hired by the state, or if disclosure might "have an adverse impact on the value of an investment."
Senate Bill 592 would extend similar powers to the public school employees' system, as well as the state employees' system.
House Bill 546 would allow the public school employees' system to delay reporting investment data if "in the reasonable judgement of the board" disclosure could "have an adverse effect on the value" of the investment.
- Joseph N. DiStefano
Another message to STRS Board Chairman Brown on the issue of public speaking slots and equity for all
Dear Dr. Brown,
I am a retiree who lives in Columbus and have easy access to STRS Board meetings. I am also younger than many retirees, in excellent health and have no problem with driving, so getting to STRS is no problem for me, and I am there for many Board meetings.
However, there are many retirees who must drive great distances to get here from all parts of the state, many of them not in the best of health, and for whom today's gas prices may force them to make sacrifices to get here. Will they be told they may not get a chance to speak to the Board when they show up at a meeting?
Remember, your next door neighbor, OEA, has launched a campaign to get out their speakers, possibly in an effort to make up for their notable absence the past 2-1/2 years. This is fine; I'd like to hear what they have to say; hopefully, they will recognize and have some solutions to many of the problems facing STRS today. But I also believe we need a level playing field.
This is an issue that cannot wait until next February. Emergency measures must be put into place now. February may be too late for some of these people. If you have the power to delay the decisions on this issue until February, you also have the power to put a temporary solution in place until then. This needs to be resolved before October 20, less than two weeks away. Please -- do the right thing; find an equitable solution for all.
Thank you.
Kathie Bracy
10/13/05
I am a retiree who lives in Columbus and have easy access to STRS Board meetings. I am also younger than many retirees, in excellent health and have no problem with driving, so getting to STRS is no problem for me, and I am there for many Board meetings.
However, there are many retirees who must drive great distances to get here from all parts of the state, many of them not in the best of health, and for whom today's gas prices may force them to make sacrifices to get here. Will they be told they may not get a chance to speak to the Board when they show up at a meeting?
Remember, your next door neighbor, OEA, has launched a campaign to get out their speakers, possibly in an effort to make up for their notable absence the past 2-1/2 years. This is fine; I'd like to hear what they have to say; hopefully, they will recognize and have some solutions to many of the problems facing STRS today. But I also believe we need a level playing field.
This is an issue that cannot wait until next February. Emergency measures must be put into place now. February may be too late for some of these people. If you have the power to delay the decisions on this issue until February, you also have the power to put a temporary solution in place until then. This needs to be resolved before October 20, less than two weeks away. Please -- do the right thing; find an equitable solution for all.
Thank you.
Kathie Bracy
10/13/05
Decoding Confusing Medical Bills
From the New York Times
October 13, 2005
Helping Patients Decode the Bill
By KATIE HAFNER
The bureaucratic tangles and mysterious lingo of the health care industry make filling out income tax forms seem simple.
Far less well-known than the nation's professional tax preparers - but every bit as helpful - is a cottage industry of private consultants who take medical paperwork off patients' hands.
Lin Osborn, one such consultant, is part of a group of medical billing advocates scattered around the country who organize bills, comb through them for errors, negotiate with collection agencies and spend hours on the phone haggling with insurance companies on a client's behalf.
"People think they can do what I do on their own, and theoretically they should be able to," said Ms. Osborn, 56, who lives in Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y., and holds a master's degree in health advocacy. "But when problems occur, people are absolutely clueless."
Some billing advocates charge a fixed percentage - typically a third of the amount they recover - while others charge an hourly rate of $100 to $200. For people who are healthy but want someone to keep track of their bills, some billing advocates charge a flat annual fee of $450 to $500.
Like many other specialists in billing, Ms. Osborn has an encyclopedic knowledge of the codes that govern how payments are made in the health care industry. She knows when to suspect that an item on a hospital bill has been coded incorrectly and how to word correspondence to get results.
The key, she said, is knowing which questions to ask.
Ms. Osborn and other advocates rely on printed guides and references, many of which are publicly available.
One is "The Medical Bill Survival Guide," by Pat Palmer, founder of Medical Billing Advocates of America (www.billadvocates.com).
Another is "Essentials of Managed Health Care," by Peter Kongstvedt.
Ms. Osborn says she also uses the Physicians' Desk Reference and "The Red Book: Pharmacy's Fundamental Reference" (Thomson), which contains a comprehensive listing of every medication sold in the United States, along with the dosages it comes in and the average wholesale prices.
Another reference recommended by Ms. Osborn is "Medical Abbreviations: 24,000 Conveniences at the Expense of Communications and Safety" by Neil M. Davis, which explains the shorthand that physicians and hospital staff enter on medical records.
A software program called Encoder Pro, published by Ingenix, costs $900 and allows the user to cross-check billing codes. For instance, a broken foot might get miscoded as a sprain, and the software can catch the mistake.
Ms. Osborn has been in business for more than seven years, and although she is an expert in the field of medical billing, she still finds herself stumped on occasion. "There's a bunch of us who talk to each other every other day with a new problem," she said. "We exchange information all the time because not everyone has seen everything."
October 13, 2005
Helping Patients Decode the Bill
By KATIE HAFNER
The bureaucratic tangles and mysterious lingo of the health care industry make filling out income tax forms seem simple.
Far less well-known than the nation's professional tax preparers - but every bit as helpful - is a cottage industry of private consultants who take medical paperwork off patients' hands.
Lin Osborn, one such consultant, is part of a group of medical billing advocates scattered around the country who organize bills, comb through them for errors, negotiate with collection agencies and spend hours on the phone haggling with insurance companies on a client's behalf.
"People think they can do what I do on their own, and theoretically they should be able to," said Ms. Osborn, 56, who lives in Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y., and holds a master's degree in health advocacy. "But when problems occur, people are absolutely clueless."
Some billing advocates charge a fixed percentage - typically a third of the amount they recover - while others charge an hourly rate of $100 to $200. For people who are healthy but want someone to keep track of their bills, some billing advocates charge a flat annual fee of $450 to $500.
Like many other specialists in billing, Ms. Osborn has an encyclopedic knowledge of the codes that govern how payments are made in the health care industry. She knows when to suspect that an item on a hospital bill has been coded incorrectly and how to word correspondence to get results.
The key, she said, is knowing which questions to ask.
Ms. Osborn and other advocates rely on printed guides and references, many of which are publicly available.
One is "The Medical Bill Survival Guide," by Pat Palmer, founder of Medical Billing Advocates of America (www.billadvocates.com).
Another is "Essentials of Managed Health Care," by Peter Kongstvedt.
Ms. Osborn says she also uses the Physicians' Desk Reference and "The Red Book: Pharmacy's Fundamental Reference" (Thomson), which contains a comprehensive listing of every medication sold in the United States, along with the dosages it comes in and the average wholesale prices.
Another reference recommended by Ms. Osborn is "Medical Abbreviations: 24,000 Conveniences at the Expense of Communications and Safety" by Neil M. Davis, which explains the shorthand that physicians and hospital staff enter on medical records.
A software program called Encoder Pro, published by Ingenix, costs $900 and allows the user to cross-check billing codes. For instance, a broken foot might get miscoded as a sprain, and the software can catch the mistake.
Ms. Osborn has been in business for more than seven years, and although she is an expert in the field of medical billing, she still finds herself stumped on occasion. "There's a bunch of us who talk to each other every other day with a new problem," she said. "We exchange information all the time because not everyone has seen everything."
One answer re: signing up for Medicare D, then later returning to STRS plan
Subject: RE: Question re: Medicare D
Date: 10/13/2005 8:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Russell
Dear Ms. Bracy
Under current rules, to come back in to the STRS Ohio Health Care Plan, you must be terminating medical and drug coverage. If you are not terminating coverage there is a six month waiting period. Each Medicare D plan that is offered may have its own restrictions or requirements for terminating that plan so you will want to find out what those restrictions or requirements are before enrolling. STRS Ohio doesn't have any restrictions that are unique to the member coming from a Medicare D plan. However, this would only cover the drug side, you would also have to be terminating the medical plan that you enrolled in.
I hope this helps,
Gary Russell
Director, Member Services
From: Kathie Bracy
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:40 PM
To: Gary Russell
Subject: Question re: Medicare D
Gary --
If a retiree signs up for Medicare D and decides later they want to return to the STRS plan, will they be allowed to do so?
Thank you --
Kathie Bracy
Date: 10/13/2005 8:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Russell
Dear Ms. Bracy
Under current rules, to come back in to the STRS Ohio Health Care Plan, you must be terminating medical and drug coverage. If you are not terminating coverage there is a six month waiting period. Each Medicare D plan that is offered may have its own restrictions or requirements for terminating that plan so you will want to find out what those restrictions or requirements are before enrolling. STRS Ohio doesn't have any restrictions that are unique to the member coming from a Medicare D plan. However, this would only cover the drug side, you would also have to be terminating the medical plan that you enrolled in.
I hope this helps,
Gary Russell
Director, Member Services
From: Kathie Bracy
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:40 PM
To: Gary Russell
Subject: Question re: Medicare D
Gary --
If a retiree signs up for Medicare D and decides later they want to return to the STRS plan, will they be allowed to do so?
Thank you --
Kathie Bracy
Too many public speakers at STRS Board meetings? A dialogue ensues with Chairman Brown
From: Dennis Leone
Subject: Re: Public participation
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:18:35 -0400
Bob -- if an 80-year-old retiree drives 3 1/2 hours from Ashtabula on the morning of October 20 to address the STRS Board, I don't want said person to be told that he/she cannot speak because of a policy we have or because someone else came in the building at 8:30 a.m. and signed up 20 speakers. I do not think it is reasonable for said person to leave his/her home at 4:30 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. so he/she can be first in line to sign up.
I agree with you that this topic -- and the matter of what constitutes free speech during the public participation portion of the meeting -- are great topics for the February retreat. I don't feel that it will be the end of the world if we allow, as we did in September, people to speak.....since we know this matter will be considered further. I really don't think this needs to become an unpleasant issue at the October 20 meeting. In fact, there are some people (Gary Allen and Bill Leibensperger) that I'd like to invite to the next meeting because I have some questions I'd like to ask them.
A new State Representative (Dan Bubp from Winchester) wrote me the other day and said he is planning on attending the November 17 STRS Board meeting. Should I tell him that he may not be able to address the Board if he wishes to?
Dennis Leone
From: Molly Janczyk Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: Brown gives ineffective response;CALL ON BOARD TO INTEREVENE on Public Speak
This is not an acceptable response seeking a fair and equitable solution for ALL. I feel this is an not a impartial decision and reflects bias. There are 4-5 board meetings before Feb retreat and it needs to be addressed now. I call on other board members for input. OEA is next door, has offered to nearly write speeches FOR membership and have many in and around Cols.! Retirees come from all over the state representing their RTA's and wish to address the board. I would assume OFT may wish to do so as well with 2 new board members. We need assured THAT ALL WILL BE GIVEN FAIR AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!
AGAIN! I CALL UPON THE STRS ATTORNEY TO COMMENT AND ASK LEONE AND LAZARES AND CHAPMAN AND FLANAGAN TO SPEAK WITH HIM AND WITH CH BROWN.
We don't put off critical issues which interfere with public rights.
What an insensitive reponse to anyone wishing to speak BUT OEA ACTIVES!
Molly Janczyk
From: Robert Brown Subject: Public participation
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:41:00 -0400
Dear Molly,
I, too, was caught off-guard when I saw the speakers' sign-up list at the STRS board meeting in September. I decided at that time to make a one-time exception to our standing board policy on public participation.
The public participation policy is included when the board conducts its annual review of all its policies. This review will occur at the February retreat. Before then I expect that STRS members, STRS staff, STRS board members, and others with an interest in this will put forth their best well-thought-out arguments for their positions. Any legal opinions that the board's public participation rule does not pass constitutional muster can be considered as well by the board at the February retreat.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Brown
Subject: Re: Public participation
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:18:35 -0400
Bob -- if an 80-year-old retiree drives 3 1/2 hours from Ashtabula on the morning of October 20 to address the STRS Board, I don't want said person to be told that he/she cannot speak because of a policy we have or because someone else came in the building at 8:30 a.m. and signed up 20 speakers. I do not think it is reasonable for said person to leave his/her home at 4:30 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. so he/she can be first in line to sign up.
I agree with you that this topic -- and the matter of what constitutes free speech during the public participation portion of the meeting -- are great topics for the February retreat. I don't feel that it will be the end of the world if we allow, as we did in September, people to speak.....since we know this matter will be considered further. I really don't think this needs to become an unpleasant issue at the October 20 meeting. In fact, there are some people (Gary Allen and Bill Leibensperger) that I'd like to invite to the next meeting because I have some questions I'd like to ask them.
A new State Representative (Dan Bubp from Winchester) wrote me the other day and said he is planning on attending the November 17 STRS Board meeting. Should I tell him that he may not be able to address the Board if he wishes to?
Dennis Leone
From: Molly Janczyk Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: Brown gives ineffective response;CALL ON BOARD TO INTEREVENE on Public Speak
This is not an acceptable response seeking a fair and equitable solution for ALL. I feel this is an not a impartial decision and reflects bias. There are 4-5 board meetings before Feb retreat and it needs to be addressed now. I call on other board members for input. OEA is next door, has offered to nearly write speeches FOR membership and have many in and around Cols.! Retirees come from all over the state representing their RTA's and wish to address the board. I would assume OFT may wish to do so as well with 2 new board members. We need assured THAT ALL WILL BE GIVEN FAIR AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!
AGAIN! I CALL UPON THE STRS ATTORNEY TO COMMENT AND ASK LEONE AND LAZARES AND CHAPMAN AND FLANAGAN TO SPEAK WITH HIM AND WITH CH BROWN.
We don't put off critical issues which interfere with public rights.
What an insensitive reponse to anyone wishing to speak BUT OEA ACTIVES!
Molly Janczyk
From: Robert Brown Subject: Public participation
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:41:00 -0400
Dear Molly,
I, too, was caught off-guard when I saw the speakers' sign-up list at the STRS board meeting in September. I decided at that time to make a one-time exception to our standing board policy on public participation.
The public participation policy is included when the board conducts its annual review of all its policies. This review will occur at the February retreat. Before then I expect that STRS members, STRS staff, STRS board members, and others with an interest in this will put forth their best well-thought-out arguments for their positions. Any legal opinions that the board's public participation rule does not pass constitutional muster can be considered as well by the board at the February retreat.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Brown
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Drug cost comparisons between Caremark and Costco: John Curry enlightens STRS
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: Drug Cost Comparison between Caremark and Costco. All 90 supply.
Damon and Gary:
The study below was compiled by an STRS retiree who called this to my attention. This is an "apples to apples" comparison between Caremark's "stated price" (as furnished with these prescriptions) on his/her packing slip they received from STRS/Caremark's mail-in Rx service and Costco's retail price(as posted on the internet) to anyone off the street who simply "walks in the door" at Costco and purchases the below mentioned Rx. There is a very significant price differential and in many cases, Costco is radically lower in price on some of these Rx's. In some instances below, it would benefit the STRS retiree to simply ingore the Caremark "mail-in" service and to simply walk in the door at Costco to purchase these particular medicines. Either Caremark is doing some "creative bookkeeping" with their stated retail price or someone is getting "taken to the cleaners." It would benefit an STRS retiree to purchase Fluoxetine at Costco at $13.68 vs. paying the $30 generic Caremark "mail-in" price. They would save $16.32 on this 90 day Rx alone! Similar savings could be found also by the purchase of Atenol and possibly some of the other Rx listed below. All of these Rx's below are used daily by this retiree and/or his/her spouse. Are STRS retirees (and STRS for that matter) really getting the best "bang for their buck" from Caremark? John Curry, a Proud STRS member
Subject: Drug Cost Comparison between Caremark and Costco. All 90 supply.
(Note: since the chart would not format correctly for this Blog, please keep in mind that the first figure after each drug name represents the Caremark price; the second, Costco. KB)
Fluoxetine 20 MG: $100.85; $13.68
Avalide 12.5 MG: $148.63; $197.29
Atenol 50 MG: $ 63.07; $7.19
Digitek .25 MG: $8.16; $10.19
Pravachol 40 MG: $350.36, $419.27
Sotalol 80 MG: $387.41; $281.77
Fosamax 70MG: $183.20; $197.99
Welchol 625MG: $405.27; $92.39
Total Retail: $1,646.95; $1,219.77
I could not find the Caremark record for Coumadin.
These are ALL IDENTICAL PRESCRIPTIONS!
Subject: Drug Cost Comparison between Caremark and Costco. All 90 supply.
Damon and Gary:
The study below was compiled by an STRS retiree who called this to my attention. This is an "apples to apples" comparison between Caremark's "stated price" (as furnished with these prescriptions) on his/her packing slip they received from STRS/Caremark's mail-in Rx service and Costco's retail price(as posted on the internet) to anyone off the street who simply "walks in the door" at Costco and purchases the below mentioned Rx. There is a very significant price differential and in many cases, Costco is radically lower in price on some of these Rx's. In some instances below, it would benefit the STRS retiree to simply ingore the Caremark "mail-in" service and to simply walk in the door at Costco to purchase these particular medicines. Either Caremark is doing some "creative bookkeeping" with their stated retail price or someone is getting "taken to the cleaners." It would benefit an STRS retiree to purchase Fluoxetine at Costco at $13.68 vs. paying the $30 generic Caremark "mail-in" price. They would save $16.32 on this 90 day Rx alone! Similar savings could be found also by the purchase of Atenol and possibly some of the other Rx listed below. All of these Rx's below are used daily by this retiree and/or his/her spouse. Are STRS retirees (and STRS for that matter) really getting the best "bang for their buck" from Caremark? John Curry, a Proud STRS member
Subject: Drug Cost Comparison between Caremark and Costco. All 90 supply.
(Note: since the chart would not format correctly for this Blog, please keep in mind that the first figure after each drug name represents the Caremark price; the second, Costco. KB)
Fluoxetine 20 MG: $100.85; $13.68
Avalide 12.5 MG: $148.63; $197.29
Atenol 50 MG: $ 63.07; $7.19
Digitek .25 MG: $8.16; $10.19
Pravachol 40 MG: $350.36, $419.27
Sotalol 80 MG: $387.41; $281.77
Fosamax 70MG: $183.20; $197.99
Welchol 625MG: $405.27; $92.39
Total Retail: $1,646.95; $1,219.77
I could not find the Caremark record for Coumadin.
These are ALL IDENTICAL PRESCRIPTIONS!
AdvancePCS and "trade secrets": comments from some STRS retiree court observers
Dennis and Nancy,
I too was in court with the two of you last year and I agree Jim Petro's attorney did little to nothing to help our plight with AdvancedPCS.
I remember STRS taking no action on the Charter Schools that had not paid their employer and employee contribution and went out of business and STRS did nothing. I believe I read that Steve Mitchell got credit for a change that the employer contribution is now taken at the State Department of Education level. I disagree with that statement as Richard Stearns and I both testified on separate occasions in front of the Senate Education Committee for that change to be made. Never did I see STRS at the Senate testifying for these deductions to be made. I also activated the members of ORTA to write letters after I had done the math on the unpaid contributions which were published in an ORTA Quarterly. I did the documentation after going through hours of Auditor Petro's audits found on the web.
I ask you where is STRS in leading the charge on these matters? Where are our governments officials in due diligence?
Cathy Burner
10/11/05
Nancy, I agree with what you have written. I recall sitting there with you a year ago in court listening to the lawyer representing AdvancePCS argue that the rebate information was a "trade secret" and I also recall the lawyer representing STRS (from Jim Petro's office) not objecting to that argument. This bothers me today, given the New York decision about AdvancePCS being involved in kickbacks and withholding rebates from their customers. STRS, in my opinion, should have been arguing for full and open disclosure by AdvancePCS.
Dennis Leone
10/11/05
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: Fwd: Multiple employers FORCE more transparency from the PBM's
Dr. Asbury and Ms. Knoesel:
An article about 52 businesses that are fighting for more of a PBM's rebates and for greater truth and disclosure from PBMs follows. STRS must fight actively for such disclosure and greater discounts to protect the Health Care Stabilization funds for current and future STRS members. AdvancePCS's (Caremark) argument that to divulge such is a "trade secret" is nonsense to protect Caremark's profit and such secrecy does not promote competition--in fact it prohibits open competition based on the facts of the drug company discounts (rebates).
Nancy B. Hamant, Legislative Chair
Warren County RTA
I too was in court with the two of you last year and I agree Jim Petro's attorney did little to nothing to help our plight with AdvancedPCS.
I remember STRS taking no action on the Charter Schools that had not paid their employer and employee contribution and went out of business and STRS did nothing. I believe I read that Steve Mitchell got credit for a change that the employer contribution is now taken at the State Department of Education level. I disagree with that statement as Richard Stearns and I both testified on separate occasions in front of the Senate Education Committee for that change to be made. Never did I see STRS at the Senate testifying for these deductions to be made. I also activated the members of ORTA to write letters after I had done the math on the unpaid contributions which were published in an ORTA Quarterly. I did the documentation after going through hours of Auditor Petro's audits found on the web.
I ask you where is STRS in leading the charge on these matters? Where are our governments officials in due diligence?
Cathy Burner
10/11/05
Nancy, I agree with what you have written. I recall sitting there with you a year ago in court listening to the lawyer representing AdvancePCS argue that the rebate information was a "trade secret" and I also recall the lawyer representing STRS (from Jim Petro's office) not objecting to that argument. This bothers me today, given the New York decision about AdvancePCS being involved in kickbacks and withholding rebates from their customers. STRS, in my opinion, should have been arguing for full and open disclosure by AdvancePCS.
Dennis Leone
10/11/05
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: Fwd: Multiple employers FORCE more transparency from the PBM's
Dr. Asbury and Ms. Knoesel:
An article about 52 businesses that are fighting for more of a PBM's rebates and for greater truth and disclosure from PBMs follows. STRS must fight actively for such disclosure and greater discounts to protect the Health Care Stabilization funds for current and future STRS members. AdvancePCS's (Caremark) argument that to divulge such is a "trade secret" is nonsense to protect Caremark's profit and such secrecy does not promote competition--in fact it prohibits open competition based on the facts of the drug company discounts (rebates).
Nancy B. Hamant, Legislative Chair
Warren County RTA
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Confused about Medicare Part D? Read Al Rhonemus' advice to Brown County RTA members
Notes about Social Security
At the Brown County Fair I spent some time with our representative from the Social Security office in Batavia. He gave me the following points to follow as STRS Retirees as the newly published Medicare D is unfolding:
Keep on file ALL correspondence on Medicare D whether for or against.
Some letters will be received that are not from the Social Security office but they make you think that they are.
Do not sign anything because when you once leave the STRS plan – insurance and prescriptions, you cannot return to your original plan. (Note: this statement is being checked for accuracy. KB) (A response from Gary Russell of STRS, 10/13/05: Under current rules, to come back in to the STRS Ohio Health Care Plan, you must be terminating medical and drug coverage. If you are not terminating coverage there is a six month waiting period. Each Medicare D plan that is offered may have its own restrictions or requirements for terminating that plan so you will want to find out what those restrictions or requirements are before enrolling. STRS Ohio doesn't have any restrictions that are unique to the member coming from a Medicare D plan. However, this would only cover the drug side, you would also have to be terminating the medical plan that you enrolled in.)
If you are on Medical Mutual or Aetna, your prescription costs will probably be less than through the new uncertain Medicare D plan.
Be alert. Don’t sign anything until you check with your STRS plan.
SS Office number in Batavia, Ohio - 513-732-0396
SS Office in Maysville, Ky. - 606-759-0090
National Number - 800-772-1213
The following STRS number. - 1-888-227-7877
Ask for Sandra L. Knoesel, Membership Benefits
Do Not give social security number to anyone except the real Social Security office and/or the STRS if requested!
Al Rhonemus, treasurer
10/11/2005
At the Brown County Fair I spent some time with our representative from the Social Security office in Batavia. He gave me the following points to follow as STRS Retirees as the newly published Medicare D is unfolding:
Keep on file ALL correspondence on Medicare D whether for or against.
Some letters will be received that are not from the Social Security office but they make you think that they are.
Do not sign anything because when you once leave the STRS plan – insurance and prescriptions, you cannot return to your original plan. (Note: this statement is being checked for accuracy. KB) (A response from Gary Russell of STRS, 10/13/05: Under current rules, to come back in to the STRS Ohio Health Care Plan, you must be terminating medical and drug coverage. If you are not terminating coverage there is a six month waiting period. Each Medicare D plan that is offered may have its own restrictions or requirements for terminating that plan so you will want to find out what those restrictions or requirements are before enrolling. STRS Ohio doesn't have any restrictions that are unique to the member coming from a Medicare D plan. However, this would only cover the drug side, you would also have to be terminating the medical plan that you enrolled in.)
If you are on Medical Mutual or Aetna, your prescription costs will probably be less than through the new uncertain Medicare D plan.
Be alert. Don’t sign anything until you check with your STRS plan.
SS Office number in Batavia, Ohio - 513-732-0396
SS Office in Maysville, Ky. - 606-759-0090
National Number - 800-772-1213
The following STRS number. - 1-888-227-7877
Ask for Sandra L. Knoesel, Membership Benefits
Do Not give social security number to anyone except the real Social Security office and/or the STRS if requested!
Al Rhonemus, treasurer
10/11/2005
John Bos to Nancy Hamant: PBMs, STRS, Caremark & Medco
Good Morning Nancy,
Thank you for the Wall Street Journal article on transparency with the PBM's. This article demonstrates that it CAN BE DONE! The PBM's work for STRS and not STRS working for the PBM's. Unfortunately, Caremark and Medco have not learned this important lesson.
It is interesting to note that the Caterpillar group model has Walgreen's as one of the 3 players that have agreed to the "new rules". Walgreen purchased Jack Eckert Drug Stores (A large Florida chain) several years ago. Eckert had a PBM in place and Walgreen is using this basis to expand rapidly into the PBM business. They also have a provision in their contract that if the PBM fails to ship promptly, the prescription can be filled at any Walgreen facility on a temporary basis. They will not charge the provider or the patient extra for this service.
It is refreshing to note that every day there is another group of states or companies that are working together to solve the prescription drug problem. Unfortunately, not one of the Ohio active or retiree groups have been mentioned in these reform movements. It is my sincere hope that the board members of ALL FIVE retirement systems will consider changes in the current system. Caremark continues with their disasterous reputation. However, I am not certain that Medco or Express Scripts are an improvement in cost. Either would be an improvement in customer service.
Thanks for the carbon copy of the article. Hopefully STRS will eventually learn that we are VERY UNHAPPY CAMPERS regarding Caremark.
God Bless!
John Bos
10/11/05
Thank you for the Wall Street Journal article on transparency with the PBM's. This article demonstrates that it CAN BE DONE! The PBM's work for STRS and not STRS working for the PBM's. Unfortunately, Caremark and Medco have not learned this important lesson.
It is interesting to note that the Caterpillar group model has Walgreen's as one of the 3 players that have agreed to the "new rules". Walgreen purchased Jack Eckert Drug Stores (A large Florida chain) several years ago. Eckert had a PBM in place and Walgreen is using this basis to expand rapidly into the PBM business. They also have a provision in their contract that if the PBM fails to ship promptly, the prescription can be filled at any Walgreen facility on a temporary basis. They will not charge the provider or the patient extra for this service.
It is refreshing to note that every day there is another group of states or companies that are working together to solve the prescription drug problem. Unfortunately, not one of the Ohio active or retiree groups have been mentioned in these reform movements. It is my sincere hope that the board members of ALL FIVE retirement systems will consider changes in the current system. Caremark continues with their disasterous reputation. However, I am not certain that Medco or Express Scripts are an improvement in cost. Either would be an improvement in customer service.
Thanks for the carbon copy of the article. Hopefully STRS will eventually learn that we are VERY UNHAPPY CAMPERS regarding Caremark.
God Bless!
John Bos
10/11/05
Finally - a major attack on the smoke-and-mirrors tactics of the drug lords
From the Wall Street Journal Online:
Employers Join to Push Drug Managers for Full Disclosure - 09/10/2005
Tired of rising drug prices, 52 large employers are using their combined clout to pressure pharmacy-benefit managers to change the way they administer employee drug purchases.
The group, including Caterpillar Inc., International Business Machines Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Verizon Communications Corp., collectively spends $3.7 billion a year on drugs. The companies plan to announce today that they are endorsing a new purchasing model that would require pharmacy-benefit managers, or PBMs, to disclose and pass on to their clients their acquisition costs for retail and mail-order prescriptions.
Moreover, the group wants PBMs to pass along the rebates, rarely disclosed, that they receive from drug manufacturers.
The employers say their coalition has certified three smaller PBMs that are willing to play ball under a new, more-transparent model. The companies say they individually will consider switching their business from their current PBMs unless they provide more disclosure.
"If it were just one company demanding this, it would be easy for them to ignore," said Sidney Banwart, vice president of human services at Caterpillar and chairman of the drug-purchasing coalition. "But 52 companies with five million lives singing the same verse -- that's a little harder to ignore."
This isn't the first time employers have tried nudging PBMs toward more disclosure. Smaller regional groups of employers have banded together -- in
This effort is potentially the biggest to date, as well as the most ambitious -- particularly because it seeks to hold PBMs to a standard of full transparency for both mail-order and generic prescriptions, two of PBMs' most profitable areas.
The country's biggest PBMs -- Medco Health Solutions Inc., Caremark Rx Inc. and Express Scripts Inc. -- have become powerful players in managed care because of their ability to buy drugs for millions of consumers.
Acting as intermediaries on behalf of their employer-customers, PBMs create large networks of participating pharmacies and use their purchasing clout to drive down drug prices. Some PBMs also own their own mail-order pharmacies and, by offering lower costs for drugs, encourage employers to get their employees to fill long-term prescriptions through the mail.
But as drug costs continue to soar, more employers are wondering whether their PBM is always acting in their own best interests. Many employers say the complex and opaque financial arrangements PBMs have with drug makers make it difficult to know whether they are always getting the best price. And many employers say hidden rebates from the drug industry can create conflicts of interest for PBMs, which may not always steer employees to the most cost-effective drug.
Under the new purchasing model, instead of relying on drug makers for revenue, PBMs would charge employers a straight administration fee. The PBMs, the coalition hopes, would compete on fees and on clinical management services they provide for employees with chronic diseases, such as diabetes.
The coalition was organized by the HR Policy Association, a public policy group that represents 250 employers. It put together the model and list of transparency criteria earlier this year, then opened the bidding process to interested PBMs. Although a couple dozen PBMs submitted proposals initially, in the end only three agreed to meet all of the group's demands: Aetna Pharmacy Management, a unit of insurer Aetna Inc.; MedImpact Healthcare Systems Inc., an independent PBM; and Walgreens Health Initiatives, a unit of drugstore chain Walgreen Co.
These three say they had already been practicing some of the coalition's disclosure requirements.
Based on the employers' 2003 drug-spending data, the coalition says it estimates it could collectively save as much as 9% by contracting with one of the three certified PBMs. Its organizers say they plan to open the bidding to new PBMs every year in the hope that more will join the system.
Medco, Express Scripts and Caremark together handle the drug benefits for more than 100 million Americans through the cards that many people present at the drugstore when they fill a prescription. The three competed in the coalition's bidding process but dropped out along the way.
"It's not surprising," says Matthew Gibbs, head of pharmacy consulting services at employee-benefits consultancy Hewitt Associates, which helped the coalition assemble the model. "This really challenges their core revenue streams."
Medco declined to say which of the coalition's requirements it wouldn't meet. "There were a few that we didn't feel were in the best interest of our clients and prospects in the coalition," a spokeswoman said. Express Scripts declined to comment. Caremark didn't return phone calls.
As the 52 employers decide whether it makes sense to switch to one of the three certified PBMs, "their existing PBMs are going to get very active in trying to retain their business, and that's probably a good thing," says Caterpillar's Mr. Banwart. Caterpillar had already persuaded its own PBM, RESTAT, of
"There is going to be a lot of pressure on even the big three to come around to this business model," says Jeffrey McGuiness, president of HR Policy Association. "In the end, it's going to be hard for anyone to say, 'Total transparency? No, we're not going to give you that.'"
PBMs enjoy some of their steepest markups in mail-order sales of generic drugs, making it an area they are particularly reluctant to open up to the full view of their employer-customers.
Currently, PBMs often sell generic drugs in mail programs at a discount to the so-called average wholesale price, an inflated list price that wholesalers don't actually pay. For example, the average wholesale price for 100 20mg fluoxetine pills, the generic form of Prozac, is about $266. A PBM might give an employer a 50% discount off that price. But the actual cost to the PBM and to pharmacies is usually only several dollars for 100 pills. The price to a retail customer without a pharmacy benefit plan might be as low as $11.29. PBMs say they lower overall costs, particularly for expensive brand-name drugs.
Last year, Towers Perrin, another employee-benefits consultancy, and a small employer group launched a similar model, called Rx Collaborative.
It selected Medco to administer it. Medco agreed to some of the terms that are in the HR Policy Association model. But when it came to mail-order generic prescriptions, Medco in many cases won the right to retain a large margin on the price.
Paul Schott, a principal at Towers Perrin, said Rx Collaborative believes it believes it still made sense to work with a bigger PBM, despite the compromise. "We could have gotten everything we wanted with a second- or third-tier PBM" -- but perhaps not the same overall cost-savings, he said.
The companies in the Rx Collaborative, which has grown to 50 from an initial five, are saving an estimated $70 million annually in drug spending, he said. However, he added, Rx Collaborative may eventually require more stringent disclosure criteria for mail-order drugs, too.
Medical Mutual or Aetna? A perspective from NW Ohio
Dear CORE members and all STRS retirees,
In the next week or so you will be receiving Health Care information on coverage and premiums for 2006. Most of you have a choice between Aetna or Medical Mutual. I am a CORE member, just like the rest of you, and I do not represent either insurance company. I am interested in getting the most for my premium dollar and I know you are also.
I have been helping an elderly STRS couple in our Lima area straighten out their 2004 hospital and short term nursing home bills that Aetna kept dragging their feet in paying the bills. In my research to help this couple, I have learned some important money saving facts about the two insurance companies. These facts are also important to retirees under 65 as well.
Medical Mutual will give you better coverage for the premium dollar (and at a lower premium if you are younger than 65) than Aetna does. Medical Mutual has more in-network providers in Northwestern Ohio than Aetna; therefore, more choices and probably better health care for the member. For example, in Lima, a town of 45,000, there was only one Aetna in-network nursing facility; Medical Mutual had three. That means the member has a better chance of getting into a network facility. That translates to lower costs for the members.
This is what happened to the couple I helped. He had been hospitalized with a serious illness and needed an special nursing home placement (isolation). The only Aetna in-network facility was full, so another one was chosen. The other facilities that were in-network for Aetna were Dayton (1 hour away) and Columbus (1-1/2 to 2 hours away). This retiree's specialists could not care for him in a facility so far away.
According to a phone call I made to Aetna last week, Aetna will make no exceptions to their rules of in- and out-of-network, even if there is no in-network facility in the area, or the only one they have is full and will accept no new patients. That means that this retiree had already paid his $500 deductible and out-of-pocket $1,500 expense and THEN had to pay an additional $1,000 deductible for out-of-network, and THEN pay 50% of the remainder of the bill for a 10 day stay!
If this retiree had been with Medical Mutual, he would have had no second deductible to pay and would have paid 20% of the remainder instead of 50%. This is another interesting fact: if this retiree had had Medicare A instead of of STRS Aetna, he would have paid ZERO ( 0 ) for the nursing home care.
How is that for equivalent? But Mr. Russell at STRS says that STRS covers their over 65-year-old retirees with equivalent coverage to Medicare A. Look over the information carefully -- call both Aetna and Medical Mutual for a provider handbook for your area.
Aetna's book of providers is not nearly as complete as that of Medical Mutual. Aetna does not even list nursing homes and some other specialities. So the ill member or a stressed spouse must have the presence of mind to call Aetna to see if providers that may be needed immediately are in the network.
Ask questions of Aetna, Medical Mutual and STRS and then decide what is best for you.
-- Shirlee Zerkel
10/11/2005
Thank you, Shirlee, for a real eye opener! KBB
Molly Janczyk adds:
I do know that in Cols. many Dr.s refuse Aetna due to non payment or slow payment. I also suggest Med Mutual but as Shirlee says: Be sure to ck in advance if your caregivers and facilities are IN NETWORK and that you are precertified BEFORE admissions. She is correct: Med Mut has only SOME facilites in network in each area. In cols. there are several for each end of town vs. the one for Aetna in an area Shirlee mentions. IF you go to ones out of network, you will pay addt'l deduc. and add'tl out of pockets. ALWAYS CK FIRST! Folks get confused because Medicare alone allows any facility; STRS insurance providers allow certain ones. You can get a list of the ones near you by calling. Also the facility will call and find out for you as well. If out of network it is an add'tl $1000-1500 you must pay. What STRS means is: comparable coverage for IN NETWORK! Medicare has no certain network facilities. With STRS we do have to ck up front for precerts and network.
In the next week or so you will be receiving Health Care information on coverage and premiums for 2006. Most of you have a choice between Aetna or Medical Mutual. I am a CORE member, just like the rest of you, and I do not represent either insurance company. I am interested in getting the most for my premium dollar and I know you are also.
I have been helping an elderly STRS couple in our Lima area straighten out their 2004 hospital and short term nursing home bills that Aetna kept dragging their feet in paying the bills. In my research to help this couple, I have learned some important money saving facts about the two insurance companies. These facts are also important to retirees under 65 as well.
Medical Mutual will give you better coverage for the premium dollar (and at a lower premium if you are younger than 65) than Aetna does. Medical Mutual has more in-network providers in Northwestern Ohio than Aetna; therefore, more choices and probably better health care for the member. For example, in Lima, a town of 45,000, there was only one Aetna in-network nursing facility; Medical Mutual had three. That means the member has a better chance of getting into a network facility. That translates to lower costs for the members.
This is what happened to the couple I helped. He had been hospitalized with a serious illness and needed an special nursing home placement (isolation). The only Aetna in-network facility was full, so another one was chosen. The other facilities that were in-network for Aetna were Dayton (1 hour away) and Columbus (1-1/2 to 2 hours away). This retiree's specialists could not care for him in a facility so far away.
According to a phone call I made to Aetna last week, Aetna will make no exceptions to their rules of in- and out-of-network, even if there is no in-network facility in the area, or the only one they have is full and will accept no new patients. That means that this retiree had already paid his $500 deductible and out-of-pocket $1,500 expense and THEN had to pay an additional $1,000 deductible for out-of-network, and THEN pay 50% of the remainder of the bill for a 10 day stay!
If this retiree had been with Medical Mutual, he would have had no second deductible to pay and would have paid 20% of the remainder instead of 50%. This is another interesting fact: if this retiree had had Medicare A instead of of STRS Aetna, he would have paid ZERO ( 0 ) for the nursing home care.
How is that for equivalent? But Mr. Russell at STRS says that STRS covers their over 65-year-old retirees with equivalent coverage to Medicare A. Look over the information carefully -- call both Aetna and Medical Mutual for a provider handbook for your area.
Aetna's book of providers is not nearly as complete as that of Medical Mutual. Aetna does not even list nursing homes and some other specialities. So the ill member or a stressed spouse must have the presence of mind to call Aetna to see if providers that may be needed immediately are in the network.
Ask questions of Aetna, Medical Mutual and STRS and then decide what is best for you.
-- Shirlee Zerkel
10/11/2005
Thank you, Shirlee, for a real eye opener! KBB
Molly Janczyk adds:
I do know that in Cols. many Dr.s refuse Aetna due to non payment or slow payment. I also suggest Med Mutual but as Shirlee says: Be sure to ck in advance if your caregivers and facilities are IN NETWORK and that you are precertified BEFORE admissions. She is correct: Med Mut has only SOME facilites in network in each area. In cols. there are several for each end of town vs. the one for Aetna in an area Shirlee mentions. IF you go to ones out of network, you will pay addt'l deduc. and add'tl out of pockets. ALWAYS CK FIRST! Folks get confused because Medicare alone allows any facility; STRS insurance providers allow certain ones. You can get a list of the ones near you by calling. Also the facility will call and find out for you as well. If out of network it is an add'tl $1000-1500 you must pay. What STRS means is: comparable coverage for IN NETWORK! Medicare has no certain network facilities. With STRS we do have to ck up front for precerts and network.
Handling medical bills - savvy advice from one who knows
It has come to my attention that those out there who are most careful to pay bills and perhaps had few health problems just haven't had the experience of what to pay when billed. I know I just sent this but please pass to those who may fit this description.
1. When you receive a bill for any service, DO NOT PAY IT UNTIL YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY (AETNA, MED MUT, AULT) send you a claim for that date of service. They will specifically state what is patient responsibility with codes. Read the codes and they explain why you pay no more then they state as your responsibility for service due to usual customary rates (UCR) or other reasons such as the provider did not pre-certification the procedure, etc.
2. Always get a pre-cert or ask your Dr. or provider of tests, etc. if they are getting one (most do) PRIOR to procedures such as MRI's, etc. OTHERWISE: YOU MAY HAVE TO PAY!
3. If you get a bill saying, you owe this amount prior to insurance billing and determination, NEVER PAY IT! Most now send bills saying: This is NOT a bill as they file with insurance first. It simply means this is what they billed insurance but insurance will drastically reduce that amount and state what is allowed on your claim and THE PROVIDER MUST WRITE OFF THE REMAINING AMOUNT! YOU NEVER OWE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT YOUR INSURANCE TELLS YOU TO PAY!
4. IF the medical provider tells you to pay the overage, call your isurance provider and report them as THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BILL YOU FOR REMAINING BILL! THEY MUST WRITE IT OFF. The insurance provider will contact them and tell them this and they must not bill you further or report them again. Write on the bill, my insurance company will contact you stating I owe only this amount and you must write off rest. NOTHING WILL GO TO CREDIT BUREAU OR AGAINST YOU. Most Dr. and medical services know enough to do this now and wait to bill until they get the claim and you wil see the write offs. This is contractual between the medical provider and insurance and they must comply. Some used to try to get the overage and it seems some still do in some areas. NEVER PAY IT.
5. If you have any question regarding a service or date of service, always call your insurance provider NOT THE DR OR MEDICAL PROVIDER to see what you owe. Call the billing Dr. or medical provider and state you will pay when you receive your written claim stating what you owe. THEY cannot do a thing but comply. Take nothing else for an answer.
6. Verify this with STRS, Med Mutal, Aetna, Ault etc. if you wish.
-- Molly Janczyk
06/30/2005
1. When you receive a bill for any service, DO NOT PAY IT UNTIL YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY (AETNA, MED MUT, AULT) send you a claim for that date of service. They will specifically state what is patient responsibility with codes. Read the codes and they explain why you pay no more then they state as your responsibility for service due to usual customary rates (UCR) or other reasons such as the provider did not pre-certification the procedure, etc.
2. Always get a pre-cert or ask your Dr. or provider of tests, etc. if they are getting one (most do) PRIOR to procedures such as MRI's, etc. OTHERWISE: YOU MAY HAVE TO PAY!
3. If you get a bill saying, you owe this amount prior to insurance billing and determination, NEVER PAY IT! Most now send bills saying: This is NOT a bill as they file with insurance first. It simply means this is what they billed insurance but insurance will drastically reduce that amount and state what is allowed on your claim and THE PROVIDER MUST WRITE OFF THE REMAINING AMOUNT! YOU NEVER OWE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT YOUR INSURANCE TELLS YOU TO PAY!
4. IF the medical provider tells you to pay the overage, call your isurance provider and report them as THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BILL YOU FOR REMAINING BILL! THEY MUST WRITE IT OFF. The insurance provider will contact them and tell them this and they must not bill you further or report them again. Write on the bill, my insurance company will contact you stating I owe only this amount and you must write off rest. NOTHING WILL GO TO CREDIT BUREAU OR AGAINST YOU. Most Dr. and medical services know enough to do this now and wait to bill until they get the claim and you wil see the write offs. This is contractual between the medical provider and insurance and they must comply. Some used to try to get the overage and it seems some still do in some areas. NEVER PAY IT.
5. If you have any question regarding a service or date of service, always call your insurance provider NOT THE DR OR MEDICAL PROVIDER to see what you owe. Call the billing Dr. or medical provider and state you will pay when you receive your written claim stating what you owe. THEY cannot do a thing but comply. Take nothing else for an answer.
6. Verify this with STRS, Med Mutal, Aetna, Ault etc. if you wish.
-- Molly Janczyk
06/30/2005
Monday, October 10, 2005
Mail-in prescription problems? Here's how to deal with them
HAVE YOU HAD PROBLEMS WITH YOUR MAIL-IN Rx?
COPY YOUR Rx
(MAKE A PHOTOSTATIC COPY)
Some retirees have been told their Rx said 30 pills when the Rx was 90
CALL OTHER PHARMACIES
CHECK ON PRICES, YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED-especially if you are Medicare eligible and require diabetic testing supplies- ask if the pharmacy "accepts Medicare assignment"-if they do, you may very well walk out paying absolutely nothing! This does happen, ask the pharmacist about it.
COUNT YOUR PILLS
DID YOU GET YOUR FULL AMOUNT?
CALL CAREMARK & STRS
AND COMPLAIN-IT'S YOUR MONEY!
COPY YOUR Rx
(MAKE A PHOTOSTATIC COPY)
Some retirees have been told their Rx said 30 pills when the Rx was 90
CALL OTHER PHARMACIES
CHECK ON PRICES, YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED-especially if you are Medicare eligible and require diabetic testing supplies- ask if the pharmacy "accepts Medicare assignment"-if they do, you may very well walk out paying absolutely nothing! This does happen, ask the pharmacist about it.
COUNT YOUR PILLS
DID YOU GET YOUR FULL AMOUNT?
CALL CAREMARK & STRS
AND COMPLAIN-IT'S YOUR MONEY!
CAREMARK1-877-827-7320 (toll-free)
Hours: Weekdays 7 a.m.–10 p.m., Saturday 7 a.m.–9 p.m., Sunday 7 a.m.–5:30 p.m.
(AT STRS ASK FOR GARY RUSSELL-MEMBER SERVICES)
russellg@strsoh.org
STRS1-888-227-7877 (toll-free)
(AT STRS ASK FOR GARY RUSSELL-MEMBER SERVICES)
russellg@strsoh.org
STRS1-888-227-7877 (toll-free)
Hours: Monday -Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 6 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Dennis Leone's investigative report on STRS May 16, 2003
May 16, 2003
MEMO TO: All STRS Board Members Herb Dyer, STRS Executive Director
FROM: Dennis Leone, Superintendent Chillicothe City Schools
SUBJECT: STRS Organizational Matters and Spending Practices
Over the past three months, I have studied information supplied to me by STRS staff in an attempt to better understand issues that have received considerable news media attention recently. It also has been my desire to learn the truth about numerous STRS financial issues that have been on the minds of many STRS active members, retired members, and employers.
I have reached the following conclusions:
1. Membership Issues: According to the STRS Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year 2002, STRS has 424,171 total individual members. This includes 178,557 active members, 105,300 retired members, 15,730 re-employed retirees, 106,746 inactive members (eligible for refunds only), and 17,838 terminated members (eligible to receive a benefit at some point in the future). There also are 944 employers that send their portion of retirement contributions to STRS. The bulk of these (899) are school boards that represent public school districts, county ESCs, vocational schools, MRDD boards, and community schools - all of which have contributed 14% of every employee's annual salary to STRS since January of 1984.
CONCLUSION: The make-up of the current 9-member STRS Board really is not representative of its membership. Only one member of the Board represents retirees and no one represents the 944 employers that make the very existence of STRS possible. It would seem that the Ohio School Boards Association should either have a seat on the STRS Board or some official role in the STRS decision-making process. The 944 employers send more dollars to STRS than all active members combined, and therefore they need to have direct involvement and a voice in how the millions they send in are spent. Retirees, likewise, are under-represented and feel taken for granted.
2. Declining Assets: To set the record straight, STRS assets peaked on August 31, 2000 at $58.7 billion. Assets dropped significantly over the next 2 years - hitting a low of $41.6 billion on September 30, 2002 - before rebounding slightly six months later to $42.4 billion on March 30, 2003. The net $16.3 billion drop in assets between 8-31-00 and 3-30-03 represents a 28% loss in assets for STRS over the 2 ½-year period. Enron stock started declining continuously in the summer of 2001, prior to the September 11 tragedy. Unfortunately, nationally recognized external investment consultants utilized by STRS - some of which had been quite helpful is assisting STRS benefit from the stock market in the past - provided bad advice in this instance. Before STRS finally ceased buying Enron shares in late November of 2001, $66 million was lost. The Columbus Dispatch reported on April 18, 2003, that STRS "underperformed" most pension funds nationally in 2002 in the area of investments. The report, based on a national study conducted by Milliman USA, stated that the median loss in investment revenue for public employee retirement systems nationally in 2002 was 8%. The loss at STRS, however, was 11.6%.
CONCLUSION: Mr. Stephan Mitchell has served STRS for the past 30 years, the last 20 of which have been as Deputy Executive Director in charge of investments. It has been published that STRS employs twice as many investment specialists as PERS (even though PERS has greater assets). Mr. Mitchell also has acknowledged that STRS has the largest investment staff of any teacher retirement system in the nation. While the investment returns at STRS have not been good over the past 3 years, and while some argue that STRS should have had a "stop loss" provision in place to prevent the huge losses experienced in the Enron fiasco, STRS investments were quite successful prior to 2000. Mr. Mitchell has had a good track record at STRS and retired members have benefited greatly from the productive investments by his department. Due to the collapse of Enron and other corporations, STRS needs to reassess its policies and practices for investing the membership's money to help ensure that investments are better protected. Even if stock market advice received is normally reliable, it seems there needs to be greater consideration for the use of "stop loss" orders to trigger an investment pull-out at a certain point after the stock has declined (to protect prior gains and/or minimize continued losses).
3. Staffing and Administrative Expenses: According to the STRS Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, administrative expenses climbed at STRS 17.4% per year during the 6-year period between 1996 and 2002. (Administrative expenses include such things as salaries and benefits of STRS employees, legal services, travel, supplies, printing, computer services, etc.) The Columbus Dispatch reported on November 3, 2002 that in the specific area of salaries, STRS costs went up 26% in one year alone between 2000 and 2001. During the same one year time period, the Dispatch reported that total administrative expenses at STRS went up 25%. During the 6-year period between 1996 and 2002 - according to data supplied by STRS staff - the number of people employed at STRS rose from 414 to 725, an increase of 12.5% per year. In a letter dated February 28, 2003 from STRS Executive Director Herb Dyer to the Ohio Retirement Study Council, Mr. Dyer wrote that 137 new employees were added in 2001 alone, and 69 of those were in administration.
CONCLUSION: While it is true that a number of new employees were needed to staff the new STRS headquarters in the areas of security, information technology, and various membership services, it is hard to accept these types of increases at a time when the total assets at STRS have plummeted a staggering 28% ($16.3 billion). When the school boards that send dollars to STRS experience declining assets on the home front, they do things like freezing salaries, cutting supplies, laying off employees, and even closing schools. In a nutshell, they reduce expenses by instituting cost-cutting measures. The STRS Board and administration have not satisfactorily demonstrated that they have reduced costs in their "house." While the administration is to be commended for reducing the total number of STRS employees in recent months to 707 (after peaking at 735 in February of 2003), much more needs to be done. To begin with, there needs to be a shift in what the STRS Board considers as priorities. The Board currently is not in touch with the managerial principles and fiscal realities from which their members and employers must operate under in order to survive. The STRS Board and administration are living a professional lifestyle that is completely foreign to their own membership. They need to emulate their membership. They need to set an example, and show they understand how it important it is to do so. This situation must change.
4. Costs Associated With New STRS Headquarters: An STRS summary of construction costs for the new and renovated building that opened in September of 2001 shows that a total of $94.2 million was spent. Included in this very nice facility is a fitness center for STRS employees that the staff estimates cost $426,000, and a child care center for STRS employees that the staff estimates cost $818,000. Also included in the cost for the new building was $869,235 for sculptures, artwork, and polished stones. One sculpture cost $378,500, another cost $168,125, another cost $112,500 and yet another cost $100,000.
CONCLUSION: The membership of STRS is NOT sending in a portion of their annual salaries to enable the Board and the administration to spend an incredible $869,235 on sculptures, artwork and polished stones. The new STRS building is not a museum, is it? It is outrageous that these purchases were allowed to occur. There is simply no acceptable answer for it. The need for the new STRS building to have a costly fitness center and a child care center is a subject for debate. What is not a subject of debate is that there are substantial annual STRS operating costs associated with the child care center. When Board members have been asked about the child care center at regional meetings, some have implied that the operating costs for the child care center are covered by the fees that are charged to the users in the STRS building. While it is true that fees are charged, they only covered 46.6% of the total child care center operating costs in 2002 - according to data supplied by STRS staff. The other 53.4% of the operating costs associated with operating the child care center in 2002 - according to data supplied by STRS staff - is picked up by STRS. And how much did this cost in 2002? The STRS Board offered up $487,560 to operate the child care center. STRS members and their employers do NOT pay their required retirement contributions so the STRS Board can annually pick up 53.4% of the operating costs of a child care center for STRS staff members. If Latch Key programs operated by school districts do not pay for themselves through fees, then they're discontinued. The $869,235 that was spent by the STRS Board on sculptures, artwork, and polished stones, and the $487,560 that was spent by the STRS Board in 2002 to operate a child care center were simply wrong. Both represent a managerial and fiscal embarrassment. The STRS Board seems to forget that their members are in a period of financial decline.
5. The 13th Check: For 21 consecutive years starting in 1981 and ending in 2001, STRS awarded a 13th check to retired members. This check was not based on prior retirement contributions of retired members or their former employers. It was based on positive STRS investment earnings each year - earnings that occurred from the utilization of the prior contributions of retired members and the current contributions of active members. According to data supplied by both STRS and the Ohio Retirement Study Council in Columbus, the total amount awarded during this 21-year period was $711 million. If one adds the lost investment income to that amount, the total price tag for the 13th check was $1.4 billion. On December 11, 1996, a Joint House/Senate Legislative Committee of the Ohio General Assembly released its 8-month study of Ohio's public retirement plans. Included in this committee's final report was a proposal from the Ohio Retirement Study Council. It recommended that the 13th check to retired STRS members be disbanded. Despite this recommendation, the STRS Board continued to hand out the 13th check for 5 more years at a total cost of $233 million. (And this total does not include another $52 million that was lost in interest earnings during the same 5-year time period.)
CONCLUSION: While retired members deserved the 13th check as a way to help deal with inflation, some now feel that all of those dollars really should have been put into the STRS health insurance fund or in a rainy day fund. According to NEA, no other state has done anything close to what Ohio has done with its 13th check. Only four other states provide bonus checks to retirees, and all of those do so intermittently and/or only with specific legislative approval on an annual basis. It deserves noting that immediately after STRS received the recommendation in December of 1996 to disband the 13th check, literally thousands of teachers and retirees wrote to legislators and STRS Board members to voice their opposition to the proposed disbandment. In fact, OEA urged its members to write letters at that time. While the 13th check seemed like the right thing to do at the time, whether it should ever have started is now being questioned. Had STRS honored the recommendation it received in 1996 regarding this fund, the projected deficit for the STRS health insurance fund for 2004 would not be there. In fairness to STRS, what the Board did in 1996 is what some school boards and collegiate trustee boards do - they respond to the vocal and written pressure of their constituents.
6. Cash Reimbursements for Unused Sick Leave and Vacation Leave: Existing Board policies permit STRS employees to receive reimbursement on an annual basis for up to 9 days of unused sick leave and 9 days of unused vacation time. Employees must have a balance of at least 20 sick leave days and 5 vacation days to qualify. In 2002, according to data supplied by STRS staff, the STRS Board paid out $701,948 in sick leave reimbursements and $342,980 in vacation leave reimbursements. Collectively, this employee benefit cost the STRS budget $1,044,928.
CONCLUSIONS: How many school districts provide all full-time employees an annual cash reimbursement for unused sick leave and unused vacation leave? It would be one thing to provide such a benefit to a select few, but to provide it to all full-time employees is inconsistent with the practices of the overwhelming majority of STRS members that are employers. It is common for school districts to provide a sick leave severance check to employees when they retire. It also is common for school districts to award a small cash amount of a few hundred dollars to employees who have perfect attendance. What STRS does is not common. These two policies need to be dropped, except for perhaps a few individuals. It deserves noting that until 2002, the STRS Board paid 100% of the family health insurance premiums of employees. Last year was the first time in STRS history that employees had to pay a portion of the Board's total premium cost. The number of STRS employer members that pay 100% of their employees' family health insurance premiums is, indeed, very rare.
7. Annual Bonus Checks to STRS Employees: There are 3 major types of bonus checks that STRS administrators and investment personnel are eligible to receive on an annual basis on top of their base salary and base salary raise. Investment employees are eligible to receive two major bonus checks annually, while non-investment administrators are eligible to receive one major bonus check per year. According to data published in the STRS 2002 Staffing, Compen-sation, and Benefits Review, the following summarizes the total number of full-time STRS employees who received these bonus checks over just the 2000-2001-2002 three-year period:
Year Employees Receiving Bonus Total STRS Cost 2000 290 $3,534,002 2001 345 $6,168,175 2002 395 $5,752,233
3-Yr. Totals 343 avg. per yr. $12,274,410
In 2002, according to data supplied by STRS staff, there were 82 STRS employees with total salaries (base salary plus bonus checks) in excess of $100,000. Thirty Three (33) STRS employees received total salaries in 2002 that were larger than the current 2003 salaries of the governor and the chief justice of the State Supreme Court. In other words, 33 STRS employees earned in excess of $155,000 in 2002. Fifteen (15) of these cleared $200,000. The following represents the distribution of bonus checks that STRS employees received in 2002:
Total Bonus Amount Number of Employees Receiving $10,000 - $19,999 55 $20,000 - $29,999 17 $30,000 - $39,999 14 $40,000 - $49,999 7 $50,000 - $59,999 2 $60,000 - $69,999 7 $70,000 - $79,999 7 $80,000 - $89,999 1 $90,000 - $99,999 3 $100,000 - $109,999 1 $110,000 - $119,999 5 $120,000 - $129,999 1
Total Receiving Bonuses Over $10,000: 118
In 2001, there was one investment employee who received single bonus checks of $110,000 and $68,880 on top of her base salary of $164,000. This brought her total STRS salary in 2001 to $342,880. And according to Mr. Dyer's February 28, 2003 letter to the Ohio Retirement Study Council, all investment personnel also received a 3.2% base raise in 2001. CONCLUSION: It is almost incomprehensible that during a three-year time period when STRS total assets declined a huge 28% ($16.3 billion), the STRS Board spent $12.2 million on bonus checks for employees. The dollar amounts associated with the bonus checks are mind-blowing. For the 944 employers that send STRS employee contributions each month, the bonuses represent fantasyland finances. Who could have guessed that one STRS employee received single bones checks in 2001 of $110,000 and $68,880 on top of her $164,000 base salary? Who would have thought that 34 STRS employees would receive bonus check totals in excess of $40,000 in 2002?
STRS Board members and administrators defend the bonus checks awarded for several reasons. First, they say, the money used for the bonuses for the investment personnel comes from a pool of dollars that was received when investment earnings were positive in years past. They say that since investment revenue has declined, money will not be available for these bonuses for very long in the future. We shall see. Secondly, and most importantly, they state firmly that the bonuses for investment personnel have been based on the employee's ability to achieve both an individual investment benchmark and a total fund investment benchmark. Under this standard, an investment employee still could receive a bonus check even if STRS assets decline, as long as the performance of the stock he/she is managing doesn't decline as much. A third reason STRS Board members and administrators defend the bonuses is they risk losing valuable employees to the private sector (where they can receive the bonuses and higher salaries). While this concern could very well be valid, it is not fair or reasonable to expect the STRS membership to accept it given the realities of the financial problems facing everyone else.
In 2002, 65 STRS administrators received bonus checks. Since they had nothing to do with the investment earnings, why did they receive the bonuses at all, given the overall decline in STRS assets? All of them received a base salary increase. While maybe there is some logic in providing a few top STRS employees some type of small bonus for exemplary work, it defies logic for bonuses to be awarded to 395 employees in 2002…..and big bonuses at that. There are a lot of excellent school treasurers in Ohio who invested money very well for their school districts in the 1990's. Did any of them get big bonuses for bringing interest earnings into their school district? If any did, it was a rare circumstance and it likely was a very small bonus. Properly investing the school district's money is part of the treasurer's job. That is why they receive a base salary. The large number of bonuses STRS gives its administrators must stop immediately. Bonus checks for so many investment personnel must stop as well. It they must be given, they should go to a select few, and they should more realistically reflect the realities facing the 944 employers and the thousands of individuals who are members of STRS. On November 13, 2002, according to the STRS 2002 Staffing, Compensation and Benefits Review, a company called Buck Consultants recommended that STRS do a better job of "establishing a clear link between individual performance and overall organizational success." The consultants analyzed recent STRS practices for bonuses, and wrote:
"The absence of a direct linkage among organization-wide performance and absolute performance (versus indexed) and incentive payouts is inconsistent with best practices."
To an outsider, the above would seem to mean that if STRS is failing to show profits with its investments, employees shouldn't be receiving bonus checks. Ultimately and unfortunately, it will be the STRS Board who determines what constitutes organizational success, not the membership. Is there any wonder how a membership survey would turn out if the STRS Board took the time to ask their membership what they feel about these issues?
8. Travel-Related Expenses for STRS Board Members: According to data supplied by STRS staff, $177,009 is expected to be spent in 2003 on travel-related expenses for Board member/administrator development, training, professional seminars, and conferences, and for investment transactions, plus real estate transactions. In the three previous years, the total amounts spent were $186,116 (2000), $174,167 (2001), and $170,001 (2002). On May 31, 1995, the Cleveland Plain Dealer called into question the fact that Board members were turning in bills for trips to places like Hawaii and Palm Springs, for lodging at the nation's top hotels, for dining at expensive restaurants, and for beach bar bills. The article said that one Board member named Jack Chapman, who is a current Board member, spent $36,736 the previous year all by himself. According to the article, a planned trip by STRS Board members to China two years earlier was cancelled after the State Attorney General Office complained that such a trip would create an image of "junketeering." In recent years, while no STRS Board member has spend money like the Plain Dealer claims Jack Chapman did in 1994, Board members still spend a great deal of membership money on out-of-state travel expenses. The total travel-related expenses and the number of trips requiring airfare over the past 3 years are shown for each Board member below:
Total Expenses Paid Number of Trips in 2000, 2001, & 2002 Requiring Airfare Hazel Sidaway $54,216,60 25 Jack Chapman $49,647.11 34 Eugene Norris $47,148.00 21 Deborah Scott $39,916.30 16 Gloria Gaylord $32,941.87 14 Joe Endry $11,727.43 7 (2-yrs.) Rick Moore $10,437.95 10 Michael Billirakis $ 9,923.28 7
Paul Shreve $ 8,174.91 4 (2-yrs.)
CONCLUSION: While there certainly are valid reasons for Board members and administrators to attend professional seminars and be properly trained, and while the STRS membership wants to be effectively represented at real estate/investment transactions, was it really necessary for Board members to spend so much money for so many out-of-state trips over the past 3 years? The STRS Board and administration say yes. The STRS membership says no. One would think that after the Plain Dealer wrote the article in 1995 about STRS Board member expenses for out-of-state trips, and after a 28% decline in assets ($16.3 billion) since August of 2000, maybe - just maybe - expensive trips to places like Hawaii would cease. Not so. Board members Eugene Norris, Deborah Scott, and Hazel Sidaway spent thousands of dollars to go to Honolulu in 2000. Board members Jack Chapman and Gloria Gaylord spent thousands of dollars to go to Kiawah Island off the coast of South Carolina in 2001. Chapman liked it so much that he went back in 2002. Board members Michael Billirakis and Joe Endry spent thousands of dollars to go to Anchorage, Alaska in 2002. Perhaps, in the minds of Board members, the dollar amounts spent and the out-of-state trips taken are not excessive or exorbitant. The STRS Board just simply doesn't understand that if the boards representing the 944 employers that are members of STRS took trips like these at a time when their organization was experiencing financial difficulties and/or declining assets, they'd be run out of town. The public wouldn't stand for it. The "public" that represents STRS is the membership - 178,557 active members, 105,300 retired members, 15,730 rehired retirees, and 944 employers.
Recommendations: The $100,000 sculpture sitting outside the STRS Board room on the 6th floor is entitled "Integrity." The inscription under the sculpture reads:
"Integrity…..guiding all that we do at STRS Ohio, from retirement Board actions to counseling members and investing money. This sculpture symbolizes integrity through the bronze figure representing members, intertwined with the stainless steel figure providing the security so highly valued by members and benefit recipients alike. The spiraling shape captures the boundless energy and strength that characterizes the system's mission and vision."
1. If the STRS Board truly believes it has the "integrity" to "provide security so highly valued by members," then NOW is the time for the Board members and the administration to have a new priority, a new focus, and a new philosophy regarding their past spending practices. No one is blaming STRS for the downturn in the nation's economy or for the national health care crisis. But when your assets have declined by a huge 28% ($16.3 billion) over just 2 ½ years - and you tell your membership at the same time that there's no longer enough money to pay for health insurance or an inflationary increase (the 13th check) - you need to fully understand that:
" The Board cannot spend $869,235 for sculptures, artwork, and polished stones in a new/renovated $94.2 million building.
" The Board cannot increase administrative expenses 25%, increase administrative salaries 26%, and hire 69 new administrators in the same year.
" The Board cannot give STRS employees annual cash reimbursements totaling $1,044,928 for portions of unused sick leave and unused vacation leave.
" The Board cannot spend $487,560 per year to provide child care services for STRS employees in a center that the Board spent $818,000 to construct.
" The Board cannot give 395 employees gigantic bonus checks every year (34 of them over $40,000 in 2002 alone) totaling $12.2 million over 3 years.
" The Board cannot give out bonus checks, period, except to very select few, and only if STRS assets exceed the asset high that was achieved in August of 2000. What the Board has done in the immediate past is tell the retired membership that it didn't have funds for a 13th check, but then came up with the funds for its own internal 13th check - the one that's a huge bonus increase for 395 employees.
" The Board cannot take trips so many trips in a single year, go to places like Honolulu, Anchorage, and Kiawah Island, or allow single Board members to have 10-15 airfares and travel-related expenses totaling anything close to $36,767 in one year.
2. It is recommended that dollars currently set aside for future employees bonuses be put into the STRS health insurance fund.
3. It is recommended that you seek legislation to change the make-up of the STRS Board in such a way that there is increased representation from retired members and new representation from the 944 employers.
4. It is recommended that you lay off employees, cut costs internally, and initiate steps to reduce total administrative expenses to their pre-August of 2000 level - which is when the total assets at STRS started to decline.
5. It is recommended that you receive serious in-service training (at a Columbus location) from managerial experts who can help you better relate to the financial conditions currently facing your individual members and employer members, how your membership is dealing with said conditions, and how STRS can help them.
6. It is recommended that you survey your entire membership - as corporations do with their stockholders - specifically to see how they feel about the seven bullet points on pages 11 and 12 of this memorandum. You might be surprised at the answer.
MEMO TO: All STRS Board Members Herb Dyer, STRS Executive Director
FROM: Dennis Leone, Superintendent Chillicothe City Schools
SUBJECT: STRS Organizational Matters and Spending Practices
Over the past three months, I have studied information supplied to me by STRS staff in an attempt to better understand issues that have received considerable news media attention recently. It also has been my desire to learn the truth about numerous STRS financial issues that have been on the minds of many STRS active members, retired members, and employers.
I have reached the following conclusions:
1. Membership Issues: According to the STRS Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year 2002, STRS has 424,171 total individual members. This includes 178,557 active members, 105,300 retired members, 15,730 re-employed retirees, 106,746 inactive members (eligible for refunds only), and 17,838 terminated members (eligible to receive a benefit at some point in the future). There also are 944 employers that send their portion of retirement contributions to STRS. The bulk of these (899) are school boards that represent public school districts, county ESCs, vocational schools, MRDD boards, and community schools - all of which have contributed 14% of every employee's annual salary to STRS since January of 1984.
CONCLUSION: The make-up of the current 9-member STRS Board really is not representative of its membership. Only one member of the Board represents retirees and no one represents the 944 employers that make the very existence of STRS possible. It would seem that the Ohio School Boards Association should either have a seat on the STRS Board or some official role in the STRS decision-making process. The 944 employers send more dollars to STRS than all active members combined, and therefore they need to have direct involvement and a voice in how the millions they send in are spent. Retirees, likewise, are under-represented and feel taken for granted.
2. Declining Assets: To set the record straight, STRS assets peaked on August 31, 2000 at $58.7 billion. Assets dropped significantly over the next 2 years - hitting a low of $41.6 billion on September 30, 2002 - before rebounding slightly six months later to $42.4 billion on March 30, 2003. The net $16.3 billion drop in assets between 8-31-00 and 3-30-03 represents a 28% loss in assets for STRS over the 2 ½-year period. Enron stock started declining continuously in the summer of 2001, prior to the September 11 tragedy. Unfortunately, nationally recognized external investment consultants utilized by STRS - some of which had been quite helpful is assisting STRS benefit from the stock market in the past - provided bad advice in this instance. Before STRS finally ceased buying Enron shares in late November of 2001, $66 million was lost. The Columbus Dispatch reported on April 18, 2003, that STRS "underperformed" most pension funds nationally in 2002 in the area of investments. The report, based on a national study conducted by Milliman USA, stated that the median loss in investment revenue for public employee retirement systems nationally in 2002 was 8%. The loss at STRS, however, was 11.6%.
CONCLUSION: Mr. Stephan Mitchell has served STRS for the past 30 years, the last 20 of which have been as Deputy Executive Director in charge of investments. It has been published that STRS employs twice as many investment specialists as PERS (even though PERS has greater assets). Mr. Mitchell also has acknowledged that STRS has the largest investment staff of any teacher retirement system in the nation. While the investment returns at STRS have not been good over the past 3 years, and while some argue that STRS should have had a "stop loss" provision in place to prevent the huge losses experienced in the Enron fiasco, STRS investments were quite successful prior to 2000. Mr. Mitchell has had a good track record at STRS and retired members have benefited greatly from the productive investments by his department. Due to the collapse of Enron and other corporations, STRS needs to reassess its policies and practices for investing the membership's money to help ensure that investments are better protected. Even if stock market advice received is normally reliable, it seems there needs to be greater consideration for the use of "stop loss" orders to trigger an investment pull-out at a certain point after the stock has declined (to protect prior gains and/or minimize continued losses).
3. Staffing and Administrative Expenses: According to the STRS Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, administrative expenses climbed at STRS 17.4% per year during the 6-year period between 1996 and 2002. (Administrative expenses include such things as salaries and benefits of STRS employees, legal services, travel, supplies, printing, computer services, etc.) The Columbus Dispatch reported on November 3, 2002 that in the specific area of salaries, STRS costs went up 26% in one year alone between 2000 and 2001. During the same one year time period, the Dispatch reported that total administrative expenses at STRS went up 25%. During the 6-year period between 1996 and 2002 - according to data supplied by STRS staff - the number of people employed at STRS rose from 414 to 725, an increase of 12.5% per year. In a letter dated February 28, 2003 from STRS Executive Director Herb Dyer to the Ohio Retirement Study Council, Mr. Dyer wrote that 137 new employees were added in 2001 alone, and 69 of those were in administration.
CONCLUSION: While it is true that a number of new employees were needed to staff the new STRS headquarters in the areas of security, information technology, and various membership services, it is hard to accept these types of increases at a time when the total assets at STRS have plummeted a staggering 28% ($16.3 billion). When the school boards that send dollars to STRS experience declining assets on the home front, they do things like freezing salaries, cutting supplies, laying off employees, and even closing schools. In a nutshell, they reduce expenses by instituting cost-cutting measures. The STRS Board and administration have not satisfactorily demonstrated that they have reduced costs in their "house." While the administration is to be commended for reducing the total number of STRS employees in recent months to 707 (after peaking at 735 in February of 2003), much more needs to be done. To begin with, there needs to be a shift in what the STRS Board considers as priorities. The Board currently is not in touch with the managerial principles and fiscal realities from which their members and employers must operate under in order to survive. The STRS Board and administration are living a professional lifestyle that is completely foreign to their own membership. They need to emulate their membership. They need to set an example, and show they understand how it important it is to do so. This situation must change.
4. Costs Associated With New STRS Headquarters: An STRS summary of construction costs for the new and renovated building that opened in September of 2001 shows that a total of $94.2 million was spent. Included in this very nice facility is a fitness center for STRS employees that the staff estimates cost $426,000, and a child care center for STRS employees that the staff estimates cost $818,000. Also included in the cost for the new building was $869,235 for sculptures, artwork, and polished stones. One sculpture cost $378,500, another cost $168,125, another cost $112,500 and yet another cost $100,000.
CONCLUSION: The membership of STRS is NOT sending in a portion of their annual salaries to enable the Board and the administration to spend an incredible $869,235 on sculptures, artwork and polished stones. The new STRS building is not a museum, is it? It is outrageous that these purchases were allowed to occur. There is simply no acceptable answer for it. The need for the new STRS building to have a costly fitness center and a child care center is a subject for debate. What is not a subject of debate is that there are substantial annual STRS operating costs associated with the child care center. When Board members have been asked about the child care center at regional meetings, some have implied that the operating costs for the child care center are covered by the fees that are charged to the users in the STRS building. While it is true that fees are charged, they only covered 46.6% of the total child care center operating costs in 2002 - according to data supplied by STRS staff. The other 53.4% of the operating costs associated with operating the child care center in 2002 - according to data supplied by STRS staff - is picked up by STRS. And how much did this cost in 2002? The STRS Board offered up $487,560 to operate the child care center. STRS members and their employers do NOT pay their required retirement contributions so the STRS Board can annually pick up 53.4% of the operating costs of a child care center for STRS staff members. If Latch Key programs operated by school districts do not pay for themselves through fees, then they're discontinued. The $869,235 that was spent by the STRS Board on sculptures, artwork, and polished stones, and the $487,560 that was spent by the STRS Board in 2002 to operate a child care center were simply wrong. Both represent a managerial and fiscal embarrassment. The STRS Board seems to forget that their members are in a period of financial decline.
5. The 13th Check: For 21 consecutive years starting in 1981 and ending in 2001, STRS awarded a 13th check to retired members. This check was not based on prior retirement contributions of retired members or their former employers. It was based on positive STRS investment earnings each year - earnings that occurred from the utilization of the prior contributions of retired members and the current contributions of active members. According to data supplied by both STRS and the Ohio Retirement Study Council in Columbus, the total amount awarded during this 21-year period was $711 million. If one adds the lost investment income to that amount, the total price tag for the 13th check was $1.4 billion. On December 11, 1996, a Joint House/Senate Legislative Committee of the Ohio General Assembly released its 8-month study of Ohio's public retirement plans. Included in this committee's final report was a proposal from the Ohio Retirement Study Council. It recommended that the 13th check to retired STRS members be disbanded. Despite this recommendation, the STRS Board continued to hand out the 13th check for 5 more years at a total cost of $233 million. (And this total does not include another $52 million that was lost in interest earnings during the same 5-year time period.)
CONCLUSION: While retired members deserved the 13th check as a way to help deal with inflation, some now feel that all of those dollars really should have been put into the STRS health insurance fund or in a rainy day fund. According to NEA, no other state has done anything close to what Ohio has done with its 13th check. Only four other states provide bonus checks to retirees, and all of those do so intermittently and/or only with specific legislative approval on an annual basis. It deserves noting that immediately after STRS received the recommendation in December of 1996 to disband the 13th check, literally thousands of teachers and retirees wrote to legislators and STRS Board members to voice their opposition to the proposed disbandment. In fact, OEA urged its members to write letters at that time. While the 13th check seemed like the right thing to do at the time, whether it should ever have started is now being questioned. Had STRS honored the recommendation it received in 1996 regarding this fund, the projected deficit for the STRS health insurance fund for 2004 would not be there. In fairness to STRS, what the Board did in 1996 is what some school boards and collegiate trustee boards do - they respond to the vocal and written pressure of their constituents.
6. Cash Reimbursements for Unused Sick Leave and Vacation Leave: Existing Board policies permit STRS employees to receive reimbursement on an annual basis for up to 9 days of unused sick leave and 9 days of unused vacation time. Employees must have a balance of at least 20 sick leave days and 5 vacation days to qualify. In 2002, according to data supplied by STRS staff, the STRS Board paid out $701,948 in sick leave reimbursements and $342,980 in vacation leave reimbursements. Collectively, this employee benefit cost the STRS budget $1,044,928.
CONCLUSIONS: How many school districts provide all full-time employees an annual cash reimbursement for unused sick leave and unused vacation leave? It would be one thing to provide such a benefit to a select few, but to provide it to all full-time employees is inconsistent with the practices of the overwhelming majority of STRS members that are employers. It is common for school districts to provide a sick leave severance check to employees when they retire. It also is common for school districts to award a small cash amount of a few hundred dollars to employees who have perfect attendance. What STRS does is not common. These two policies need to be dropped, except for perhaps a few individuals. It deserves noting that until 2002, the STRS Board paid 100% of the family health insurance premiums of employees. Last year was the first time in STRS history that employees had to pay a portion of the Board's total premium cost. The number of STRS employer members that pay 100% of their employees' family health insurance premiums is, indeed, very rare.
7. Annual Bonus Checks to STRS Employees: There are 3 major types of bonus checks that STRS administrators and investment personnel are eligible to receive on an annual basis on top of their base salary and base salary raise. Investment employees are eligible to receive two major bonus checks annually, while non-investment administrators are eligible to receive one major bonus check per year. According to data published in the STRS 2002 Staffing, Compen-sation, and Benefits Review, the following summarizes the total number of full-time STRS employees who received these bonus checks over just the 2000-2001-2002 three-year period:
Year Employees Receiving Bonus Total STRS Cost 2000 290 $3,534,002 2001 345 $6,168,175 2002 395 $5,752,233
3-Yr. Totals 343 avg. per yr. $12,274,410
In 2002, according to data supplied by STRS staff, there were 82 STRS employees with total salaries (base salary plus bonus checks) in excess of $100,000. Thirty Three (33) STRS employees received total salaries in 2002 that were larger than the current 2003 salaries of the governor and the chief justice of the State Supreme Court. In other words, 33 STRS employees earned in excess of $155,000 in 2002. Fifteen (15) of these cleared $200,000. The following represents the distribution of bonus checks that STRS employees received in 2002:
Total Bonus Amount Number of Employees Receiving $10,000 - $19,999 55 $20,000 - $29,999 17 $30,000 - $39,999 14 $40,000 - $49,999 7 $50,000 - $59,999 2 $60,000 - $69,999 7 $70,000 - $79,999 7 $80,000 - $89,999 1 $90,000 - $99,999 3 $100,000 - $109,999 1 $110,000 - $119,999 5 $120,000 - $129,999 1
Total Receiving Bonuses Over $10,000: 118
In 2001, there was one investment employee who received single bonus checks of $110,000 and $68,880 on top of her base salary of $164,000. This brought her total STRS salary in 2001 to $342,880. And according to Mr. Dyer's February 28, 2003 letter to the Ohio Retirement Study Council, all investment personnel also received a 3.2% base raise in 2001. CONCLUSION: It is almost incomprehensible that during a three-year time period when STRS total assets declined a huge 28% ($16.3 billion), the STRS Board spent $12.2 million on bonus checks for employees. The dollar amounts associated with the bonus checks are mind-blowing. For the 944 employers that send STRS employee contributions each month, the bonuses represent fantasyland finances. Who could have guessed that one STRS employee received single bones checks in 2001 of $110,000 and $68,880 on top of her $164,000 base salary? Who would have thought that 34 STRS employees would receive bonus check totals in excess of $40,000 in 2002?
STRS Board members and administrators defend the bonus checks awarded for several reasons. First, they say, the money used for the bonuses for the investment personnel comes from a pool of dollars that was received when investment earnings were positive in years past. They say that since investment revenue has declined, money will not be available for these bonuses for very long in the future. We shall see. Secondly, and most importantly, they state firmly that the bonuses for investment personnel have been based on the employee's ability to achieve both an individual investment benchmark and a total fund investment benchmark. Under this standard, an investment employee still could receive a bonus check even if STRS assets decline, as long as the performance of the stock he/she is managing doesn't decline as much. A third reason STRS Board members and administrators defend the bonuses is they risk losing valuable employees to the private sector (where they can receive the bonuses and higher salaries). While this concern could very well be valid, it is not fair or reasonable to expect the STRS membership to accept it given the realities of the financial problems facing everyone else.
In 2002, 65 STRS administrators received bonus checks. Since they had nothing to do with the investment earnings, why did they receive the bonuses at all, given the overall decline in STRS assets? All of them received a base salary increase. While maybe there is some logic in providing a few top STRS employees some type of small bonus for exemplary work, it defies logic for bonuses to be awarded to 395 employees in 2002…..and big bonuses at that. There are a lot of excellent school treasurers in Ohio who invested money very well for their school districts in the 1990's. Did any of them get big bonuses for bringing interest earnings into their school district? If any did, it was a rare circumstance and it likely was a very small bonus. Properly investing the school district's money is part of the treasurer's job. That is why they receive a base salary. The large number of bonuses STRS gives its administrators must stop immediately. Bonus checks for so many investment personnel must stop as well. It they must be given, they should go to a select few, and they should more realistically reflect the realities facing the 944 employers and the thousands of individuals who are members of STRS. On November 13, 2002, according to the STRS 2002 Staffing, Compensation and Benefits Review, a company called Buck Consultants recommended that STRS do a better job of "establishing a clear link between individual performance and overall organizational success." The consultants analyzed recent STRS practices for bonuses, and wrote:
"The absence of a direct linkage among organization-wide performance and absolute performance (versus indexed) and incentive payouts is inconsistent with best practices."
To an outsider, the above would seem to mean that if STRS is failing to show profits with its investments, employees shouldn't be receiving bonus checks. Ultimately and unfortunately, it will be the STRS Board who determines what constitutes organizational success, not the membership. Is there any wonder how a membership survey would turn out if the STRS Board took the time to ask their membership what they feel about these issues?
8. Travel-Related Expenses for STRS Board Members: According to data supplied by STRS staff, $177,009 is expected to be spent in 2003 on travel-related expenses for Board member/administrator development, training, professional seminars, and conferences, and for investment transactions, plus real estate transactions. In the three previous years, the total amounts spent were $186,116 (2000), $174,167 (2001), and $170,001 (2002). On May 31, 1995, the Cleveland Plain Dealer called into question the fact that Board members were turning in bills for trips to places like Hawaii and Palm Springs, for lodging at the nation's top hotels, for dining at expensive restaurants, and for beach bar bills. The article said that one Board member named Jack Chapman, who is a current Board member, spent $36,736 the previous year all by himself. According to the article, a planned trip by STRS Board members to China two years earlier was cancelled after the State Attorney General Office complained that such a trip would create an image of "junketeering." In recent years, while no STRS Board member has spend money like the Plain Dealer claims Jack Chapman did in 1994, Board members still spend a great deal of membership money on out-of-state travel expenses. The total travel-related expenses and the number of trips requiring airfare over the past 3 years are shown for each Board member below:
Total Expenses Paid Number of Trips in 2000, 2001, & 2002 Requiring Airfare Hazel Sidaway $54,216,60 25 Jack Chapman $49,647.11 34 Eugene Norris $47,148.00 21 Deborah Scott $39,916.30 16 Gloria Gaylord $32,941.87 14 Joe Endry $11,727.43 7 (2-yrs.) Rick Moore $10,437.95 10 Michael Billirakis $ 9,923.28 7
Paul Shreve $ 8,174.91 4 (2-yrs.)
CONCLUSION: While there certainly are valid reasons for Board members and administrators to attend professional seminars and be properly trained, and while the STRS membership wants to be effectively represented at real estate/investment transactions, was it really necessary for Board members to spend so much money for so many out-of-state trips over the past 3 years? The STRS Board and administration say yes. The STRS membership says no. One would think that after the Plain Dealer wrote the article in 1995 about STRS Board member expenses for out-of-state trips, and after a 28% decline in assets ($16.3 billion) since August of 2000, maybe - just maybe - expensive trips to places like Hawaii would cease. Not so. Board members Eugene Norris, Deborah Scott, and Hazel Sidaway spent thousands of dollars to go to Honolulu in 2000. Board members Jack Chapman and Gloria Gaylord spent thousands of dollars to go to Kiawah Island off the coast of South Carolina in 2001. Chapman liked it so much that he went back in 2002. Board members Michael Billirakis and Joe Endry spent thousands of dollars to go to Anchorage, Alaska in 2002. Perhaps, in the minds of Board members, the dollar amounts spent and the out-of-state trips taken are not excessive or exorbitant. The STRS Board just simply doesn't understand that if the boards representing the 944 employers that are members of STRS took trips like these at a time when their organization was experiencing financial difficulties and/or declining assets, they'd be run out of town. The public wouldn't stand for it. The "public" that represents STRS is the membership - 178,557 active members, 105,300 retired members, 15,730 rehired retirees, and 944 employers.
Recommendations: The $100,000 sculpture sitting outside the STRS Board room on the 6th floor is entitled "Integrity." The inscription under the sculpture reads:
"Integrity…..guiding all that we do at STRS Ohio, from retirement Board actions to counseling members and investing money. This sculpture symbolizes integrity through the bronze figure representing members, intertwined with the stainless steel figure providing the security so highly valued by members and benefit recipients alike. The spiraling shape captures the boundless energy and strength that characterizes the system's mission and vision."
1. If the STRS Board truly believes it has the "integrity" to "provide security so highly valued by members," then NOW is the time for the Board members and the administration to have a new priority, a new focus, and a new philosophy regarding their past spending practices. No one is blaming STRS for the downturn in the nation's economy or for the national health care crisis. But when your assets have declined by a huge 28% ($16.3 billion) over just 2 ½ years - and you tell your membership at the same time that there's no longer enough money to pay for health insurance or an inflationary increase (the 13th check) - you need to fully understand that:
" The Board cannot spend $869,235 for sculptures, artwork, and polished stones in a new/renovated $94.2 million building.
" The Board cannot increase administrative expenses 25%, increase administrative salaries 26%, and hire 69 new administrators in the same year.
" The Board cannot give STRS employees annual cash reimbursements totaling $1,044,928 for portions of unused sick leave and unused vacation leave.
" The Board cannot spend $487,560 per year to provide child care services for STRS employees in a center that the Board spent $818,000 to construct.
" The Board cannot give 395 employees gigantic bonus checks every year (34 of them over $40,000 in 2002 alone) totaling $12.2 million over 3 years.
" The Board cannot give out bonus checks, period, except to very select few, and only if STRS assets exceed the asset high that was achieved in August of 2000. What the Board has done in the immediate past is tell the retired membership that it didn't have funds for a 13th check, but then came up with the funds for its own internal 13th check - the one that's a huge bonus increase for 395 employees.
" The Board cannot take trips so many trips in a single year, go to places like Honolulu, Anchorage, and Kiawah Island, or allow single Board members to have 10-15 airfares and travel-related expenses totaling anything close to $36,767 in one year.
2. It is recommended that dollars currently set aside for future employees bonuses be put into the STRS health insurance fund.
3. It is recommended that you seek legislation to change the make-up of the STRS Board in such a way that there is increased representation from retired members and new representation from the 944 employers.
4. It is recommended that you lay off employees, cut costs internally, and initiate steps to reduce total administrative expenses to their pre-August of 2000 level - which is when the total assets at STRS started to decline.
5. It is recommended that you receive serious in-service training (at a Columbus location) from managerial experts who can help you better relate to the financial conditions currently facing your individual members and employer members, how your membership is dealing with said conditions, and how STRS can help them.
6. It is recommended that you survey your entire membership - as corporations do with their stockholders - specifically to see how they feel about the seven bullet points on pages 11 and 12 of this memorandum. You might be surprised at the answer.
Join CORE
How can I become a part of CORE?
Participation in CORE (Concerned Ohio Retired Educators) is open to all Ohio educators, both retired and active, and their immediate family members, both retired and active.
CORE is organized around an Advisory Board, and subcommittees are organized as the need arises. CORE supporters and the Advisory Board meet after each STRS meeting in Columbus. All educators are encouraged to attend the monthly STRS meeting and the CORE meeting.
CORE has also been meeting monthly with the director of STRS and his staff; a better understanding of the positions of both CORE and STRS has been a result of these meetings. Changes in the operation of STRS have occurred, but more change is needed. We must all work together to ensure the success of CORE and to preserve retirement rights for Ohio's educators.
To join, you may go to the CORE website (http://www.concernedohio.org/core.html) and download an application form by clicking on "Join CORE."
Dues are $5.00 (one-time), payable to Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, and may be sent to Concerned Ohio Retired Educators, P.O. Box 141358, Columbus, OH 43214.
Contributions to CORE Legal Fund are also welcome in any amount.
10 ways to avoid outrageous hospital overcharges
The Basics |
10 ways to avoid outrageous hospital overcharges |
American hospitals are fleecing patients out of billions of dollars annually, and experts say that while some of the overcharges are honest errors, many are deliberate. That's because hospital bills are next to impossible for consumers to understand, which means hospitals can hide improper charges behind mysterious medical terminology and baffling codes. That's what Nora Johnson found when her 56-year-old husband, Bill, underwent hip-replacement surgery in 1999. The cost of the operation was $25,000. Knowing that her family would have to pay a percentage of the costs, she requested an itemized bill. $129 for a box of tissues
"More than 90% of the hospital bills I've audited have gross overcharges," says Johnson. Estimates on hospital overcharges run up to $10 billion a year, with an average of $1,300 per hospital stay. Other experts say overcharges make up approximately 5% of hospital bills. "I've seen $90 charged for a 70-cent I.V. How about $129 for a mucous recovery system? That's a box of Kleenex," Johnson adds. She's also seen charges for ordinary supplies, such as towels and sheets, that should be included in the room charges. Johnson says some overcharges are mistakes, but many are deliberate. "Hospitals are huge moneymakers," she explains. "Their executives enjoy big bonuses." As a result, "Hospitals have become highly innovative when it comes to billing, and ordinary citizens have no idea they're being ripped off," says Johnson, who is affiliated with Salem, Va.-based Medical Billing Advocates of America.
But making sure that you are charged correctly can be a daunting task. That's what Richard Clarke found out firsthand shortly after his father died in 2000. Nevertheless, experts say you can take these steps to make sure that you're not taken for a ride.
Since helping sort out his late father's medical bills, Richard Clarke, the former hospital CFO, has became founder and president of the Healthcare Financial Management Association, an Illinois-based association of medical finance officers who work with the American Hospital Association and other groups to develop more consumer-friendly billing. Special thanks to John Bos for submitting this article. |
Tom Hall: Active teacher candidate for STRS Board in 2006 election
From Tom Curtis (10/10/2005)
I am pleased to announce that Dr. Thomas Hall, Ph.D. has announced his desire to become an active teacher candidate for the STRS board in the next election.
Two active teacher positions will be elected this coming spring. The current Chair, Robert Brown and Vice Chair, Conni Ramser were appointed in 2003 by the prior board. They are fulfilling the terms of retiring board members Hazel Sidaway and Jack Chapman. You may remember that the board selects the replacement and not the membership for a vacated term. I am told Robert Brown will not seek election, whereas Conni Ramser will seek election to the board this spring.
Tom Hall is a prior active teacher candidate for the position Jack Chapman vacated in fall 2003. He obviously was not the choice by the board of that time. However, he has great credentials and I personally felt he had the most to offer the board of the five candidates wishing to fill that position at that time. Considering his background and available time to serve on our board, I remain convinced that he is a very worthy candidate.
Tom Hall is a college Professor of Economics at Miami University, where he started as an Assistant Professor of Economics in 1982. He became an Associate Professor in May of 1988. From May 1988 to August 1989 he was on a leave of absence to work as a Visiting Senior Economist, US State Department, Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs, Planning and Economics Analysis Staff. From July 1993 to present, he has served as a full Professor of Economics at Miami University. He has published numerous articles throughout his career and has written three books to date.
It is my hope that Thomas Hall will be elected to one of the active teacher board positions this spring and will begin his 4-year term on September 1, 2006.
Thomas E. Hall
Business Address:
Department of Economics
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
513-529-2862
e-mail: hallte@muohio.edu
Home Address:
76 Oliver Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215
513-948-9983
Birth Date: January 31, 1954, Detroit, Michigan.
Marital Status: Married, one child.
Education:
Ph.D. Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, July 1982.
Fields of specialization: Macroeconomics and
Econometrics. Dissertation title: "A Bayesian
Analysis of Neoclassical Aggregate
Investment Demand Functions."
M.A. Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, December 1979.
B.A. Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder, May 1976.
Work Experience:
July 1993-present. Professor of Economics,
Miami University.
May 1988-June 1993. Associate Professor
of Economics, Miami University (On leave
May 1988 – August 1989.)
May 1988-August 1989. Visiting Senior
Economist, U.S. State Department, Bureau
of Economics and Business Affairs,
Planning and Economic Analysis Staff.
August 1982-May1988. Assistant Professor
of Economics, Miami University.
September 1979-July 1982. Teaching
Associate, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Publications
In Journals:
"Price Cyclicality in the Natural Rate –
Nominal Demand Shock Model." Journal
of Macroeconomics, Spring, 1995,
pp. 257-272.
"McCallum’s Base Growth Rule: Evidence
for the United States, Germany, Japan, and
Canada." Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv Vol.
126 (December 1990), pp. 630-642.
"On Allocating the Variance of Output
Growth to Permanent and Cyclical
Components." Economic Letters, (1989),
pp. 323-326 (with M.A. Fields and T.W.
Fields).
"Income or Wealth in Money Demand:
Comment." Southern Economic Journal,
April 1988, pp. 1039-42 (with T.W. Fields).
"Anticipated Nominal Demand Shocks and
the Speed of Aggregate Price Adjustment."
Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb.
1987, pp. 140-4 (with T.W. Fields).
"Velocity and the Variability of Monetary
Growth: Evidence from Granger Causality
Tests." Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking, February 1987, pp.112-6 (with
N.R. Noble).
"A New View of the Market Structure
Performance Debate." Journal of Industrial
Economics, June 1984, pp. 397-417 (with
J.L. Bothwell and T.F. Cooley).
Books:
Business Cycles: The Nature and Causes
of Economic Fluctuations (New York:
Praeger Publishing, 1990).
The Great Depression: An International
Disaster of Perverse Economic Policies,
with J.D. Ferguson (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1998).
The Rotten Fruits of Economic Controls
and the Rise From the Ashes, 1965-1989
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2003).
Other Publications:
Book Review: Business Cycles Since 1820:
New International Perspectives from
Historical Evidence, by Trevor J.O. Dick,
Journal of Economic History, 60 (June
2000), p 578-588.
Book Review: Economic Cycles: Long
Cycles and Business Cycles Since 1870 by
Solomos Solomou, Journal of Economic
History, 60 (2000), pp. 931-932.
"Breakthrough Books." Linguagranca: The
Review of Academic Life, December/
January 1999.
"The Natural Rate of Unemployment," in
David Glasner, Editor, Encyclopedia of
Business Cycles, Panics, Crises and
Depressions Garland Publishing, 1997.
"Consumption Expenditures," in David
Glasner, Editor, Encyclopedia of Business
Cycles, Panics, Crises and Depressions
Garland Publishing, 1997.
"The Real Problem: Productivity Deficit,"
Forum for Applied Research and Public
Policy, Summer 1992, pp. 63-5.
”Rising Oil Prices Cloud Economic Outlook,"
The Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/20/90.
"Why do Economists Disagree?" The
Deltasig of Delta Sigma Pi, May 1987.
References: Available on Request
I am pleased to announce that Dr. Thomas Hall, Ph.D. has announced his desire to become an active teacher candidate for the STRS board in the next election.
Two active teacher positions will be elected this coming spring. The current Chair, Robert Brown and Vice Chair, Conni Ramser were appointed in 2003 by the prior board. They are fulfilling the terms of retiring board members Hazel Sidaway and Jack Chapman. You may remember that the board selects the replacement and not the membership for a vacated term. I am told Robert Brown will not seek election, whereas Conni Ramser will seek election to the board this spring.
Tom Hall is a prior active teacher candidate for the position Jack Chapman vacated in fall 2003. He obviously was not the choice by the board of that time. However, he has great credentials and I personally felt he had the most to offer the board of the five candidates wishing to fill that position at that time. Considering his background and available time to serve on our board, I remain convinced that he is a very worthy candidate.
Tom Hall is a college Professor of Economics at Miami University, where he started as an Assistant Professor of Economics in 1982. He became an Associate Professor in May of 1988. From May 1988 to August 1989 he was on a leave of absence to work as a Visiting Senior Economist, US State Department, Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs, Planning and Economics Analysis Staff. From July 1993 to present, he has served as a full Professor of Economics at Miami University. He has published numerous articles throughout his career and has written three books to date.
It is my hope that Thomas Hall will be elected to one of the active teacher board positions this spring and will begin his 4-year term on September 1, 2006.
Thomas E. Hall
Business Address:
Department of Economics
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
513-529-2862
e-mail: hallte@muohio.edu
Home Address:
76 Oliver Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45215
513-948-9983
Birth Date: January 31, 1954, Detroit, Michigan.
Marital Status: Married, one child.
Education:
Ph.D. Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, July 1982.
Fields of specialization: Macroeconomics and
Econometrics. Dissertation title: "A Bayesian
Analysis of Neoclassical Aggregate
Investment Demand Functions."
M.A. Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, December 1979.
B.A. Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder, May 1976.
Work Experience:
July 1993-present. Professor of Economics,
Miami University.
May 1988-June 1993. Associate Professor
of Economics, Miami University (On leave
May 1988 – August 1989.)
May 1988-August 1989. Visiting Senior
Economist, U.S. State Department, Bureau
of Economics and Business Affairs,
Planning and Economic Analysis Staff.
August 1982-May1988. Assistant Professor
of Economics, Miami University.
September 1979-July 1982. Teaching
Associate, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Publications
In Journals:
"Price Cyclicality in the Natural Rate –
Nominal Demand Shock Model." Journal
of Macroeconomics, Spring, 1995,
pp. 257-272.
"McCallum’s Base Growth Rule: Evidence
for the United States, Germany, Japan, and
Canada." Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv Vol.
126 (December 1990), pp. 630-642.
"On Allocating the Variance of Output
Growth to Permanent and Cyclical
Components." Economic Letters, (1989),
pp. 323-326 (with M.A. Fields and T.W.
Fields).
"Income or Wealth in Money Demand:
Comment." Southern Economic Journal,
April 1988, pp. 1039-42 (with T.W. Fields).
"Anticipated Nominal Demand Shocks and
the Speed of Aggregate Price Adjustment."
Review of Economics and Statistics, Feb.
1987, pp. 140-4 (with T.W. Fields).
"Velocity and the Variability of Monetary
Growth: Evidence from Granger Causality
Tests." Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking, February 1987, pp.112-6 (with
N.R. Noble).
"A New View of the Market Structure
Performance Debate." Journal of Industrial
Economics, June 1984, pp. 397-417 (with
J.L. Bothwell and T.F. Cooley).
Books:
Business Cycles: The Nature and Causes
of Economic Fluctuations (New York:
Praeger Publishing, 1990).
The Great Depression: An International
Disaster of Perverse Economic Policies,
with J.D. Ferguson (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1998).
The Rotten Fruits of Economic Controls
and the Rise From the Ashes, 1965-1989
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2003).
Other Publications:
Book Review: Business Cycles Since 1820:
New International Perspectives from
Historical Evidence, by Trevor J.O. Dick,
Journal of Economic History, 60 (June
2000), p 578-588.
Book Review: Economic Cycles: Long
Cycles and Business Cycles Since 1870 by
Solomos Solomou, Journal of Economic
History, 60 (2000), pp. 931-932.
"Breakthrough Books." Linguagranca: The
Review of Academic Life, December/
January 1999.
"The Natural Rate of Unemployment," in
David Glasner, Editor, Encyclopedia of
Business Cycles, Panics, Crises and
Depressions Garland Publishing, 1997.
"Consumption Expenditures," in David
Glasner, Editor, Encyclopedia of Business
Cycles, Panics, Crises and Depressions
Garland Publishing, 1997.
"The Real Problem: Productivity Deficit,"
Forum for Applied Research and Public
Policy, Summer 1992, pp. 63-5.
”Rising Oil Prices Cloud Economic Outlook,"
The Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/20/90.
"Why do Economists Disagree?" The
Deltasig of Delta Sigma Pi, May 1987.
References: Available on Request
Tom Curtis and others; an old dialogue: Leadership from ORTA?
Hello Molly,
Hey, it could happen! It just cannot happen quickly due to the huge bureaucracy ORTA has established over the years, which results in the snails pace at which they are able to make decisions. The leadership jobs have become much more demanding and stressful then in the very recent past. It is not just a nice little social order any longer, it has become a task each officer and/or administrator is being forced to deal with.
It may not appear that much is going on at ORTA, but believe me, there is plenty for them to be doing. That is probably one of the many things they despise about CORE. CORE is only focused on improving the situation that got out of hand by a bunch of greedy people. We have been focused on improving retirement for those already retired and all those that will follow. It would appear that ORTA never placed that concern at the top of their priorities. Obviously, they would say that is absurd, but have they? For as many years as that organization has been in operation, they only have ever had one seat on the STRS board. Yes, I understand they have tried to make that change, but let's face it, until Dennis Leone, John Lazares and CORE came on the scene, that was never going to happen for ORTA. It would appear the strongest advocate ORTA ever had was Joe Endry and look at what a disappointment he turned out to be. He almost immediately resigned himself to believing that because he was only one vote, that he could not make a difference, sat back and started enjoying the ride with the OEA leadership.
Heck they have to worry about things such as offering plans for reduced telephone minutes to their members. Is that truly a priority ORTA should be concerning them with? In my opinion, absolutely not!
CORE has been focused all along. We supported Dennis Leone's findings and responded as well to our own feelings of being lied to about our health care. AND WE WERE! They just do not get it. The baby boomers started retiring and damn well want value for their dollar. If they do not get it, they are not going to support people and programs that do not provide that result. They know what they were promised and want it, rightfully so.
Right now the ORTA leadership has to tread water with one hand and do everything else with the other. How is it going to look when they report at the NRTA the next couple of years, that even though they have used the NRTA's $10,000 to design a program for all RTA's to improve their membership, they cannot even improve their own. Would you feel confident about following a plan that was drafted by people that could not understand how to make it work for themselves?
That style of management is responsible for this country not producing many products in the USA. They cannot run a company efficiently and pay the workers well. They have to have labor at minimal cost to cover all the inefficient ways they operate. They cannot at all costs FAIL! That would be unacceptable. Consequently, they think if they hire enough management staff to support decisions they make, they will be successful. That just does not work, as they might expect. Their fear of failure overrides what common sense they possess.
Look for changes at ORTA to begin next year. They cannot possibly work through all their problems in any less time. We have accomplished a lot in two years, but we have been focused. On their behalf, they do have numerous irons in the fire. Maybe some should be reduced, as their membership numbers do not represent that people are flocking to their door to join. I talked with a fellow classmate of mine at my 40th class reunion this summer. She retired from teaching after 35 years in the Cleveland area and had never heard of ORTA. I thought she was pulling my leg, but not so.
That is the sweet side of our success as CORE. We won! We had no officers, constitution, by-laws, or guidelines to hold us back and simply went about our business. Of course they did not choose to have Dennis Leone on their team, so they had a huge handicap. Too bad for them!
What we stated we wanted to see happen just seemed impossible to those in ORTA. Just who did we "Johnny come latelys" think we were? Just what did we think we were going to get accomplished, that they could not for many years.
Take care,
Tom Curtis (10/09/05)
We had high hopes for THIS year with all the 'talk' of looking into all bylaws etc. for needed change giving members expectations for more forward thinking but alas, not to be.
--Molly Janczyk (10/08/05)
I decided a couple of years ago not to renew my ORTA Membership. I hope for a change in ORTA's attitude toward Dr. Leone and CORE. A positive stand for compounded COLAs would go a long way toward convincing me and probably others to rejoin. I could never understand how ORTA could be against the very constituents they claimed to represent! I hope a new president will make things right.
-- Jim Kimmel (10/08/05)
42 States provide compounded COLA's for retirees. Ohio is not one of them. Molly writes to Blin Scatterday, asking ORTA to fight for Compounded COLAs.
-- Nancy Hamant (10/08/05)
Hey, it could happen! It just cannot happen quickly due to the huge bureaucracy ORTA has established over the years, which results in the snails pace at which they are able to make decisions. The leadership jobs have become much more demanding and stressful then in the very recent past. It is not just a nice little social order any longer, it has become a task each officer and/or administrator is being forced to deal with.
It may not appear that much is going on at ORTA, but believe me, there is plenty for them to be doing. That is probably one of the many things they despise about CORE. CORE is only focused on improving the situation that got out of hand by a bunch of greedy people. We have been focused on improving retirement for those already retired and all those that will follow. It would appear that ORTA never placed that concern at the top of their priorities. Obviously, they would say that is absurd, but have they? For as many years as that organization has been in operation, they only have ever had one seat on the STRS board. Yes, I understand they have tried to make that change, but let's face it, until Dennis Leone, John Lazares and CORE came on the scene, that was never going to happen for ORTA. It would appear the strongest advocate ORTA ever had was Joe Endry and look at what a disappointment he turned out to be. He almost immediately resigned himself to believing that because he was only one vote, that he could not make a difference, sat back and started enjoying the ride with the OEA leadership.
Heck they have to worry about things such as offering plans for reduced telephone minutes to their members. Is that truly a priority ORTA should be concerning them with? In my opinion, absolutely not!
CORE has been focused all along. We supported Dennis Leone's findings and responded as well to our own feelings of being lied to about our health care. AND WE WERE! They just do not get it. The baby boomers started retiring and damn well want value for their dollar. If they do not get it, they are not going to support people and programs that do not provide that result. They know what they were promised and want it, rightfully so.
Right now the ORTA leadership has to tread water with one hand and do everything else with the other. How is it going to look when they report at the NRTA the next couple of years, that even though they have used the NRTA's $10,000 to design a program for all RTA's to improve their membership, they cannot even improve their own. Would you feel confident about following a plan that was drafted by people that could not understand how to make it work for themselves?
That style of management is responsible for this country not producing many products in the USA. They cannot run a company efficiently and pay the workers well. They have to have labor at minimal cost to cover all the inefficient ways they operate. They cannot at all costs FAIL! That would be unacceptable. Consequently, they think if they hire enough management staff to support decisions they make, they will be successful. That just does not work, as they might expect. Their fear of failure overrides what common sense they possess.
Look for changes at ORTA to begin next year. They cannot possibly work through all their problems in any less time. We have accomplished a lot in two years, but we have been focused. On their behalf, they do have numerous irons in the fire. Maybe some should be reduced, as their membership numbers do not represent that people are flocking to their door to join. I talked with a fellow classmate of mine at my 40th class reunion this summer. She retired from teaching after 35 years in the Cleveland area and had never heard of ORTA. I thought she was pulling my leg, but not so.
That is the sweet side of our success as CORE. We won! We had no officers, constitution, by-laws, or guidelines to hold us back and simply went about our business. Of course they did not choose to have Dennis Leone on their team, so they had a huge handicap. Too bad for them!
What we stated we wanted to see happen just seemed impossible to those in ORTA. Just who did we "Johnny come latelys" think we were? Just what did we think we were going to get accomplished, that they could not for many years.
Take care,
Tom Curtis (10/09/05)
We had high hopes for THIS year with all the 'talk' of looking into all bylaws etc. for needed change giving members expectations for more forward thinking but alas, not to be.
--Molly Janczyk (10/08/05)
I decided a couple of years ago not to renew my ORTA Membership. I hope for a change in ORTA's attitude toward Dr. Leone and CORE. A positive stand for compounded COLAs would go a long way toward convincing me and probably others to rejoin. I could never understand how ORTA could be against the very constituents they claimed to represent! I hope a new president will make things right.
-- Jim Kimmel (10/08/05)
42 States provide compounded COLA's for retirees. Ohio is not one of them. Molly writes to Blin Scatterday, asking ORTA to fight for Compounded COLAs.
-- Nancy Hamant (10/08/05)
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Richard Cordray: Restore Accountability to Ohio Politics
Ohio voters need more accountability in the political system. This year, Bob Taft became the first Ohio governor ever to be convicted of a crime while serving in office. Three grand juries are investigating the "paytoplay" culture that is rotting our state government. State officials now admit that hundreds of millions of dollars held in trust for injured workers have been lost. Millions of dollars invested by political cronies in rare coins and other bizarre items were either stolen or squandered with no real oversight. This time around, the abuses involve Republicans, but the problems are systemic.
The system is broken. Who can deny it? With this many state officials involved, and none willing to accept responsibility, the voters of Ohio must recognize that the entire culture has to be changed to keep these problems from ever happening again.
In November, the voters will have the chance to voice their frustration with the scandals in Columbus and make changes to ensure more accountability. A package of reform measures will appear on the ballot this fall that deserves the public's support. For the first time in many years, the people will be able to overhaul the system and show the politicians once again who is the real boss.
Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the new broom that will sweep clean in Ohio politics. These measures would:
● allow any Ohioan to vote early, during the month before an election, reducing long lines on Election Day and making it easier to exercise the right to vote;
● reduce campaign contributions from $10,000 down to $2,000 per person, and restore the historical ban that kept "paytoplay" corporate money out of Ohio politics;
● establish an independent redistricting process to create competitive districts, forcing politicians to compete for our votes without rigging districts in their own favor;
● take control over elections away from a single partisan official and place it with a bipartisan state board modeled on the local boards that run elections in every county.
These common sense reforms will be vigorously opposed by the entrenched politicians and the lobbyists who foot the bill to keep them in power. The forces that have grown fat off the status quo will put every obstacle in the path of reforms that give average voters more say over their own government. The current system allows a privileged few to help themselves. They will not give up their power without waging a nasty fight. Already, two lawsuits have been filed to block a vote on these reforms; both were dismissed as frivolous. Now it is the people's turn to speak.
Early voting is a sensible measure that is already working well in other States. It will give people an alternative to standing in long lines on Election Day, losing their right to vote if they cannot afford the wait. It is especially suited to people with no flexibility in their working hours, for those who might have to pull a long shift on Election Day, or for working parents who might have problems with their child care.
Reducing the limits on campaign contributions is equally sensible. Last year, the legislature welcomed big money into Ohio politics by raising contribution limits from $2,500 to $10,000 per individual, a figure that is almost unheard of elsewhere in the country. The reform measure would roll back that change and restore Ohio's historical ban on corporate money in political campaigns. It is a scandal that we let politicians pick their voters, rather than the other way around. Last year, the Presidential race in Ohio was decided by about 2% of the vote, yet Ohio legislators won reelection by an average of over 35%. They did so based on district maps drawn to protect incumbents. We need to restore competition to our politics so that our representatives actually represent - and have to listen to the voters. That is the democratic way. Seats so safe that they are routinely won by overwhelming margins make the politicians who "own" them virtually unaccountable.
Finally, many people were upset last year that administration of the presidential election became so partisan. Ohio's chief elections officer was the chairperson for one of the Presidential candidates! Use of a bipartisan state board would do away with a referee who wears the jersey of one of the teams. Instead, this proposal is modeled on bipartisan local boards that already run elections now in every county.
Ohio is facing serious problems. We lead the nation in home foreclosures and bankruptcy filings. Worst of all, we are losing more young people each year than any other State in the country, young people who are moving away to find a future elsewhere. These problems are more fundamental than Republicans or Democrats - they affect all Ohioans. Until the voters make the politicians listen, nothing is likely to change. But if the people get their bullhorns out this fall and vote Yes on Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5, then we can begin to say goodbye to the failed status quo and make Ohio great again.
Richard Cordray, the Franklin County Treasurer, is an active supporter of the measures proposed by Reform Ohio Now as Issues 2, 3, 4 & 5 on the November ballot.
Cheers for Dennis and John as they go on the road!
After driving from Chillicothe to Allen Co. for their special RTA meeting last week, on Tuesday, Dennis Leone will drive to the Medina County RTA meeting at noon. Nancy B and Gwynetta High invited him. He also goes to the Brown County RTA on October 27, then to a group of retirees in Fostoria on November 1.
This has been common practice for him though you do not hear about it.
John Lazares has been speaking as well. Most recently he sent me 25 new CORE members from the Cinci area which is Deb Scott territory so really great. Of course his surgery has held him down, much to his dismay.
Both our elected board members continue to 'work it' for US!
From Molly Janczyk
Oct. 8, 2005
This has been common practice for him though you do not hear about it.
John Lazares has been speaking as well. Most recently he sent me 25 new CORE members from the Cinci area which is Deb Scott territory so really great. Of course his surgery has held him down, much to his dismay.
Both our elected board members continue to 'work it' for US!
From Molly Janczyk
Oct. 8, 2005
John Lazares responds to Justin Hibbard's column of 10/09/2005
From an e-mail to John Curry from STRS Board member John Lazares, 10/09/2005:
JOHN and ALL CORE MEMBERS: AFTER READING THIS IT MAKES MY MOTION THAT I MADE IN AUGUST THAT STRS SHOULD NOT DO BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES AND PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ETHICAL, LOOKS REALLY GOOD NOW BUT WHAT IS SAD IS I COULD NOT GET A SECOND TO THIS MOTION. JOHN LAZARES
BusinessWeek Online
OCTOBER 9, 2005
NEWS ANALYSIS
By Justin Hibbard
Lehman: Burnt by a Hedge Fund? The investment bank is suing Wood River Capital Management, alleging it was lured into a fraudulent stock-transfer scheme
"TRANSACTION SETUP. Court records show that in June, 2000, Whittier, former co-head of media and communications equity research at investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, signed a five-year lease on Wood River's 4,442-square-foot office in downtown San Francisco, at a base rent of $31,464 a month. Three months later, the landlord, The State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, sued Whittier and Wood River alleging failure of rent and fees totaling $67,885. The case was dismissed without prejudice in September, 2002."
A week after executives of Stamford (Conn.)-based hedge fund Bayou Management pled guilty to fraud charges, another hedge-fund scandal is brewing on the opposite coast.
Lehman Brothers (LEH ) filed a suit on Oct. 3 in California Superior Court in San Francisco against hedge-fund firm Wood River Capital Management, which is based in San Francisco and Ketchum, Idaho, and claims to manage $500 million. The suit alleges that Wood River lured Lehman into a fraudulent stock-transfer scheme in September, resulting in the investment bank wiring $20 million into Wood River's Merrill Lynch account. Since then, the suit claims, Wood River and its principal, John H. Whittier, have allegedly obtained, or tried to obtain, the money.
FRETTING INVESTORS. Lehman has been unable to contact Wood River since Sept. 28 and believes the firm ceased operations that same week. A five-year lease on Wood River's downtown San Francisco office expired Sept. 30, according to a lease agreement dated June 6, 2000.
Reuters reported on Oct. 5 that Wood River has been incommunicado recently and that investors in its three-year-old fund were growing concerned. Calls placed by BusinessWeek to Wood River's San Francisco office on Oct. 6 reached a general voice-mail box that did not accept messages, and calls to Whittier's direct line reached a voice-mail box that was full. A voice-mail message left for Whittier at Wood River's Ketchum office was not returned by press time. Lehman's outside counsel, Jones Day in San Francisco, referred a call to a Lehman spokesperson, who said the firm doesn't comment on pending litigation.
Among the investors in Wood River's fund is Albuquerque (N.M.)-based energy utility PNM Resources (PNM ). PNM spokesman Don Brown says it's PNM's policy not to comment on its investments (see BW Online, 9/2/05, "Keep a Wary Eye on That Hedge Fund").
TRANSACTION SETUP. Court records show that in June, 2000, Whittier, former co-head of media and communications equity research at investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, signed a five-year lease on Wood River's 4,442-square-foot office in downtown San Francisco, at a base rent of $31,464 a month. Three months later, the landlord, The State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, sued Whittier and Wood River alleging failure of rent and fees totaling $67,885. The case was dismissed without prejudice in September, 2002.
Whittier first approached Lehman in June, 2005, according to Lehman's suit. The investment bank performed brokerage services for Wood River and Whittier in July. Two months later, Whittier asked Lehman to finance a transfer of 800,000 shares of Endwave (ENWV ), a Sunnyvale (Calif.)-based maker of radio-frequency components used in cell-phone networks and defense systems, the suit says.
Lehman was to use its funds to buy the shares through Wood River's account at Merrill Lynch. Then, Wood River would buy the shares from Lehman through Wood River's account at Wedbush Morgan Securities, thereby reimbursing Lehman. In addition, Wood River would pay Lehman a fee.
On Sept. 22, Lehman arranged to purchase the Endwave shares at $26 each, or $20.8 million. It had until Sept. 27 to pay Merrill Lynch. But when Lehman tried to prepare for the subsequent sale to the Wedbush account, it discovered that Wood River had not arranged for the transfer to Wedbush, according to the suit.
STOCK NOSEDIVE. When Lehman contacted Wood River, its employees allegedly assured Lehman they would make the arrangements. On Sept. 28, Lehman bought the shares through Merrill Lynch. Since then, it has been unable to confirm whether Wood River has an account at Wedbush, and it has been unable to contact Whittier or Wood River.
Lehman was left holding 800,000 shares of Endwave. From Sept. 27 to Sept. 30, Endwave's share price plunged from $27 to $13, wiping out $158 million in market value. Lehman began selling off its shares on Sept. 29. Trading volume in Endwave stock that day reached 8.14 million shares -- 325 times the three-month average.
Endwave issued a statement that day: "Management is not aware of any developments related to the company that would account for recent weakness in the company's share price and increased market activity." The company assured investors that it would go ahead with a planned secondary stock offering, for which it had filed a registration statement on Sept. 15. Short interest in Endwave stock rose 2.7% in September, to 2.3 million shares, or 20% of shares outstanding.
APPEARANCE ORDERED. Lehman is seeking damages it says that it expects to be no less than $8 million. On Wednesday, a San Francisco Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order against Whittier and Wood River that forbids them from obtaining proceeds from Lehman's Sept. 22 stock purchase. The judge ordered Whittier to appear before the court on Oct. 27.
A spokeswoman for the California Attorney General's office says the office is not aware of the Lehman suit. She says Wood River is not being investigated by the office.
JOHN and ALL CORE MEMBERS: AFTER READING THIS IT MAKES MY MOTION THAT I MADE IN AUGUST THAT STRS SHOULD NOT DO BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES AND PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ETHICAL, LOOKS REALLY GOOD NOW BUT WHAT IS SAD IS I COULD NOT GET A SECOND TO THIS MOTION. JOHN LAZARES
BusinessWeek Online
OCTOBER 9, 2005
NEWS ANALYSIS
By Justin Hibbard
Lehman: Burnt by a Hedge Fund? The investment bank is suing Wood River Capital Management, alleging it was lured into a fraudulent stock-transfer scheme
"TRANSACTION SETUP. Court records show that in June, 2000, Whittier, former co-head of media and communications equity research at investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, signed a five-year lease on Wood River's 4,442-square-foot office in downtown San Francisco, at a base rent of $31,464 a month. Three months later, the landlord, The State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, sued Whittier and Wood River alleging failure of rent and fees totaling $67,885. The case was dismissed without prejudice in September, 2002."
A week after executives of Stamford (Conn.)-based hedge fund Bayou Management pled guilty to fraud charges, another hedge-fund scandal is brewing on the opposite coast.
Lehman Brothers (LEH ) filed a suit on Oct. 3 in California Superior Court in San Francisco against hedge-fund firm Wood River Capital Management, which is based in San Francisco and Ketchum, Idaho, and claims to manage $500 million. The suit alleges that Wood River lured Lehman into a fraudulent stock-transfer scheme in September, resulting in the investment bank wiring $20 million into Wood River's Merrill Lynch account. Since then, the suit claims, Wood River and its principal, John H. Whittier, have allegedly obtained, or tried to obtain, the money.
FRETTING INVESTORS. Lehman has been unable to contact Wood River since Sept. 28 and believes the firm ceased operations that same week. A five-year lease on Wood River's downtown San Francisco office expired Sept. 30, according to a lease agreement dated June 6, 2000.
Reuters reported on Oct. 5 that Wood River has been incommunicado recently and that investors in its three-year-old fund were growing concerned. Calls placed by BusinessWeek to Wood River's San Francisco office on Oct. 6 reached a general voice-mail box that did not accept messages, and calls to Whittier's direct line reached a voice-mail box that was full. A voice-mail message left for Whittier at Wood River's Ketchum office was not returned by press time. Lehman's outside counsel, Jones Day in San Francisco, referred a call to a Lehman spokesperson, who said the firm doesn't comment on pending litigation.
Among the investors in Wood River's fund is Albuquerque (N.M.)-based energy utility PNM Resources (PNM ). PNM spokesman Don Brown says it's PNM's policy not to comment on its investments (see BW Online, 9/2/05, "Keep a Wary Eye on That Hedge Fund").
TRANSACTION SETUP. Court records show that in June, 2000, Whittier, former co-head of media and communications equity research at investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, signed a five-year lease on Wood River's 4,442-square-foot office in downtown San Francisco, at a base rent of $31,464 a month. Three months later, the landlord, The State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, sued Whittier and Wood River alleging failure of rent and fees totaling $67,885. The case was dismissed without prejudice in September, 2002.
Whittier first approached Lehman in June, 2005, according to Lehman's suit. The investment bank performed brokerage services for Wood River and Whittier in July. Two months later, Whittier asked Lehman to finance a transfer of 800,000 shares of Endwave (ENWV ), a Sunnyvale (Calif.)-based maker of radio-frequency components used in cell-phone networks and defense systems, the suit says.
Lehman was to use its funds to buy the shares through Wood River's account at Merrill Lynch. Then, Wood River would buy the shares from Lehman through Wood River's account at Wedbush Morgan Securities, thereby reimbursing Lehman. In addition, Wood River would pay Lehman a fee.
On Sept. 22, Lehman arranged to purchase the Endwave shares at $26 each, or $20.8 million. It had until Sept. 27 to pay Merrill Lynch. But when Lehman tried to prepare for the subsequent sale to the Wedbush account, it discovered that Wood River had not arranged for the transfer to Wedbush, according to the suit.
STOCK NOSEDIVE. When Lehman contacted Wood River, its employees allegedly assured Lehman they would make the arrangements. On Sept. 28, Lehman bought the shares through Merrill Lynch. Since then, it has been unable to confirm whether Wood River has an account at Wedbush, and it has been unable to contact Whittier or Wood River.
Lehman was left holding 800,000 shares of Endwave. From Sept. 27 to Sept. 30, Endwave's share price plunged from $27 to $13, wiping out $158 million in market value. Lehman began selling off its shares on Sept. 29. Trading volume in Endwave stock that day reached 8.14 million shares -- 325 times the three-month average.
Endwave issued a statement that day: "Management is not aware of any developments related to the company that would account for recent weakness in the company's share price and increased market activity." The company assured investors that it would go ahead with a planned secondary stock offering, for which it had filed a registration statement on Sept. 15. Short interest in Endwave stock rose 2.7% in September, to 2.3 million shares, or 20% of shares outstanding.
APPEARANCE ORDERED. Lehman is seeking damages it says that it expects to be no less than $8 million. On Wednesday, a San Francisco Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order against Whittier and Wood River that forbids them from obtaining proceeds from Lehman's Sept. 22 stock purchase. The judge ordered Whittier to appear before the court on Oct. 27.
A spokeswoman for the California Attorney General's office says the office is not aware of the Lehman suit. She says Wood River is not being investigated by the office.
Dr. Dennis Leone is sworn in as new Board member at STRS 09/15/2005
As his wife, Nikki, looks on and retiree Jake Frowine holds the Bible, Dennis Leone takes the oath of office as a new Board member of STRS with the assistance of his daughter, Lindsay. Age 25 and a first year teacher, Lindsay recently made her first contribution to STRS. Jake, who is 95, made his first STRS contribution in 1928; he also carried petitions for Dennis to four counties during the 2005 election campaign. Congratulations, Dr. Leone!
(Photo courtesy of John Curry)
Report: Dennis Leone's Swearing-in at STRS 09/15/2005
On Thursday, September 15th, 2005, a CORE reception was held at the STRS building honoring Dr. Dennis Leone, a newly elected member of the STRS Board. The reception was held at noon preceding the swearing in ceremony for Dr. Leone and the two other new STRS Board members, Ms. Mary Ann Flannagan and Mr. Jeff Chapman. The Sublett Room at STRS was filled with proud CORE members who had gathered to witness Dr. Leone's swearing in and to share this important occasion with him and his family. Following a song of tribute to John Lazares, he shared highlights of his first year as a STRS Board member. Mr. Lazares then introduced Dr. Leone who was interrupted by the CORE group with a song written and sung by CORE member, Ryan Holderman. Dr. Leone thanked CORE for the welcoming reception and their continuing support. He then introduced Mr. David Freel of the Ohio Ethics Commission who brought the group up-to-date on the status of the ongoing investigation of STRS, other pension funds, BWC, etc. Refreshments were served, and Mr. Chapman and Ms. Flannagan arrived and were introduced to CORE. Shortly before noon, the group disbanded to go to the STRS Board meeting room where the new Board members were sworn in.
Following the swearing in ceremonies, there was a fifteen minute break followed by the Public Speaks portion of the STRS Board meeting. The first fifteen or so speakers were all OEA, OEA-R, or Education Association reps. All speeches had common threads in them. . .specifically stressing the importance of the Health Care Advocates, the importance of the use of surveys to determine wishes of the STRS members, concern about the three new members of the Board creating change in favor of the retirees versus active teachers, and several speakers emphasized a hands-off policy regarding certain aspects of SB 190 (specifically protecting the 88% pension for 35 years service). An exception was made for this time only to allow CORE speakers to speak or pass since the first 15 speakers (the number allowed) had consumed all of the speaking slots.
Following the Public Speaks portion of the Board meeting, it was announced that the Health Care Committee would meet in ten minutes. A decision was made by Mr. Tom Curtis, Chair of the CORE Annual Meeting, to cancel the CORE meeting in order for members to attend the Health Care meeting. The fact that so much time had elapsed due to the number of speakers precipitated this decision. The CORE Annual Meeting will therefore be held next month on Thursday, October the 20th at 11:45 in the cafeteria room behind the Sublett Room as usual at which time, CORE goals and objectives for the future will be determined. Please try to join us.
By Mary Ellen Angeletti
Following the swearing in ceremonies, there was a fifteen minute break followed by the Public Speaks portion of the STRS Board meeting. The first fifteen or so speakers were all OEA, OEA-R, or Education Association reps. All speeches had common threads in them. . .specifically stressing the importance of the Health Care Advocates, the importance of the use of surveys to determine wishes of the STRS members, concern about the three new members of the Board creating change in favor of the retirees versus active teachers, and several speakers emphasized a hands-off policy regarding certain aspects of SB 190 (specifically protecting the 88% pension for 35 years service). An exception was made for this time only to allow CORE speakers to speak or pass since the first 15 speakers (the number allowed) had consumed all of the speaking slots.
Following the Public Speaks portion of the Board meeting, it was announced that the Health Care Committee would meet in ten minutes. A decision was made by Mr. Tom Curtis, Chair of the CORE Annual Meeting, to cancel the CORE meeting in order for members to attend the Health Care meeting. The fact that so much time had elapsed due to the number of speakers precipitated this decision. The CORE Annual Meeting will therefore be held next month on Thursday, October the 20th at 11:45 in the cafeteria room behind the Sublett Room as usual at which time, CORE goals and objectives for the future will be determined. Please try to join us.
By Mary Ellen Angeletti
posted by Kathie Bracy @ 11:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home