Iowa lawmakers are paying a pittance for primo state health insurance

Copyright 2017, Des Moines Register and Tribune Co.

More than 100 Iowa lawmakers appear to be paying hundreds of dollars less than they should for their state-provided health insurance — a potential violation of state law, a Des Moines Register investigation shows.

Data analyzed by the Register shows that 92 of 149 Iowa legislators pay as little as $20 a month in health insurance premiums, rather than the $142 to $334 a month that those plans call for.

Another 39 lawmakers pay up to $344 a month for coverage plans, rather than as much as $446 called for by their plan.

The total underpayments are costing taxpayers more than $29,000 a month, roughly $350,000 a year, the Register found. The investigation comes as state lawmakers are discussing possible changes to state workers' benefits.

DATABASE: Here's what lawmakers pay for health insurance

Iowa Department of Administrative Services provided the data at the Register's request but declined to answer follow-up questions, such as why legislators were being under-charged for their insurance.

The Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the possible violation of state law, saying it couldn't provide "legal opinions in this matter or disclose any legal advice we may or may not have provided to state agencies or bodies."

But Mark Kende, a Drake University constitutional law professor, said the issue raises "statutory construction" questions, meaning they may need to be resolved by a court.

"There's just something about it that seems questionable," Kende said.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers acknowledged that it appears legislators are paying less than they should under state law. But they said they were unaware of the problem before the Register contacted them.

“Our premiums do seem to conflict with the law,” said Rep. Dave Deyoe, R-Nevada and chairman of the House Labor Committee.

Non-union coverage at union rates 

The nearly 35-year-old law that governs the state’s executive branch extends health insurance to legislators. But it says they are eligible only for insurance plans made available under group plans to non-union employees.

However, Iowa lawmakers are paying the lower health insurance premiums available to union members, while getting the better benefits afforded in the non-union plans, the Register found.

EDITORIAL: Lawmakers target unions, sponge off union benefits

Bottom line: The vast majority of lawmakers are enjoying non-union plans at union prices. That means that their monthly premiums, as well as their out-of-pocket maximum costs, are reduced.

In a Register editorial last week that first reported the lawmakers' health-insurance deal, Danny Homan, president of AFSCME Council 61, complained the situation is particularly unfair, given that the Republican-controlled legislature has said it intends to rewrite the state’s collective-bargaining law.

The Register analysis found 17 lawmakers declined the state-offered health insurance. And one House seat was not included in this review because it was unfilled until a special election Tuesday.

Information on one legislator — Rep. Brian Meyer, D-Des Moines — did not match other plans listed by the state and could not be compared for cost purposes. Questions about Meyer's plan were not answered by Administrative Services as of late Wednesday.

Who's responsible?

It remains unclear where responsibility falls for the lawmakers’ lower rate.

Glen Dickinson, director of the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, noted some plans offered to non-union employees of the judicial branch do not require monthly premium payments.

But the judicial system is a separate branch of government. And the 1983 law, which applies to the executive branch, extends certain health insurance options to lawmakers as members of the third branch of government.

DATABASE: Here's what lawmakers pay for health insurance

Carmine Boal, a former state representative who is now the House clerk, confirmed information showing lawmakers are paying the union rates, rather than non-union premiums required of executive branch employees.

But she noted other state plans in other branches of government, acknowledging there are questions about whether lawmakers may arbitrarily select a plan from any branch of government.

“It depends on how you interpret” the law, Boal said when asked whether the lower rate is legal.

Changing state premiums

Until last year, both union and non-union state employees generally paid no health insurance premiums. But that changed after Gov. Terry Branstad made the push that state employees should share the rising cost of health insurance.

Union employees now generally pay $20 a month, while non-union employees pay 20 percent of the health plan cost.

The state does give a $111-a-month health insurance premium discount for non-union employees who participate in a wellness program designed to prevent long-term illnesses. But Boal confirmed that lawmakers do not participate in that program.

Rep. Bruce Hunter, D-Des Moines and a regular advocate of union rights, said he was unaware that he and most state lawmakers were being given a deal on their health insurance. He said he believes there should be a review.

Lawmakers may need to repay the state, he said.

Hunter is on a health insurance plan that costs the state $11,196 a year, while he pays $240 in premiums. If he were paying the non-union rate, his portion would be almost $2,300 a year.

“If that’s the law of the land, we should be following the law of the land just like everybody else,” Hunter said.

Deyoe, the House Labor Committee chairman, is on a family plan health insurance program that costs Iowa $19,788 a year. Deyoe’s share is $20 per month, or $240 a year in premiums. It would cost him $334 each month or $4,008 a year, calculations using state data show.

Deyoe, whose committee is reviewing legislation that union executives say could curb state employee benefits, said he is in favor of reviewing the issue going forward rather than requiring lawmakers to pay past health insurance premiums.

“I think the better alternative is to address it in legislation and say from now on make sure we’re paying the same as everybody else in a similar circumstance,” Deyoe said.