Latest news with #SenateBill2160
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
North Dakota Senate sustains governor's veto on state health insurance bill
Sen. Kyle Davison, R-Fargo, speaks on the Senate floor during the organizational session on Dec. 4, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The Senate on Thursday morning narrowly sustained Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto of a bill that opponents feared would allow the state to shift health insurance premium costs onto employees. The vote to override the veto failed 31-15. The Senate needed 32 votes. Senate Bill 2160, sponsored by Rep. Kyle Davison, R-Fargo, would have changed the state employee health care plan to comply with the federal Affordable Care Act. This change would be irreversible. North Dakota governor vetoes bill to change state employee health insurance In Armstrong's veto message to the Senate, he called the state health insurance plan one of the 'strongest and most useful recruitment and retention tools.' He said the bill 'disposes of that tool and replaces it with a more expensive alternative.' A fiscal analysis of the bill estimated the plan would cost about $6.6 million for the 2025-2027 budget cycle and more than $25 million over the 2027-2029 biennium. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Kyle Davison, R-Fargo, said the bill was important to modernize health insurance for state employees. A major draw of the new plan is that it would give workers more free benefits, including preventive health care services like colonoscopy screenings and mammograms. It would also allow co-pays to count toward out-of-pocket maximums. 'Senate Bill 2160 is an opportunity,' Davison said. 'The opportunity to increase the rate of preventive care and wellness visits, which could be to reduce spending over the long term.' A prevailing concern, however, is that the bill would allow the state to start charging premiums to employees to offset the additional cost of the plan. Under the current plan, the state cannot charge premiums. Sen. Judy Lee, R-West Fargo, said she voted in favor of the bill in committee but that she had since changed her mind because she believes the impacts of the policy change should be studied more carefully before it is implemented. 'I visited with the governor a couple of days ago, and his concerns were that people who are affected the most have not had nearly enough exposure to what this change makes,' Lee told her colleagues on the floor. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor vetoes bill to change state employee health insurance
North Dakota state lawmakers participate in a Senate floor session on April 25, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong vetoed a bill Monday that opponents worried would lead to state employees paying health insurance premiums. Senate Bill 2160 would have moved the state's insurance to a plan that offers benefits compliant with the federal Affordable Care Act. Supporters of the bill said it would have given more flexibility to the state over health insurance plan options and would have provided better coverage of preventative care. Opponents said it could lead to employees paying health insurance premiums, which they don't currently. North Dakota House approves change to state health insurance plan In Armstrong's veto message to the Senate, he said the state's health plans are one of the most valued benefits for state employees. He added it was one of the state's 'strongest and most useful recruitment and retention tools.' 'Senate Bill 2160 disposes of that tool and replaces it with a more expensive alternative,' Armstrong wrote. The health plan switch was estimated to cost at least $25.8 million every two years, according to the governor's office. 'The current health plan is better for state employees and employees of political subdivisions,' Armstrong wrote. He added, if the bill were to become law, state employees and employees of political subdivisions would have been put in separate health insurance pools, which would have raised the cost on both groups. The vetoed bill will now go back to the Senate. It would take a two-thirds majority vote to override the governor's veto. The Senate passed the bill 44-2. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
North Dakota House approves change to state health insurance plan
Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, speaks on the House floor on Jan. 24, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota House voted 55-37 on Wednesday in favor of a bill that some worry will lead to state employees paying health insurance premiums — though supporters say that is not the intention of the proposal. Senate Bill 2160 would move the state's insurance to a plan that offers benefits compliant with the federal Affordable Care Act. Proponents say it will give the state more flexibility over plan designs, which are limited under the current plan. This could save the state money at no extra cost to employees, said Rep. Jonathan Warrey, R-Casselton, the bill's sponsor. Savings are especially important in light of rising health care costs, he added. North Dakota lawmakers consider bill that could lead to state employees paying for health premiums The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday forwarded the bill with a 15-7 do-pass recommendation. The bill is expected to cost $6.6 million for the 2025-2027 budget cycle, plus an additional more than $25 million for the 2027-2029 biennium, according to a fiscal analysis attached to the bill. One of the biggest concerns voiced by critics is that the state would be able to start charging employees premiums. The state may be tempted to do so to offset the additional cost of the plan, opponents said. Under the current plan, the state cannot charge premiums. Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, said the bill does not force premiums on employees and there's no reason the state would need to in the future. The state would not have to charge employees premiums in order for the plan to be Affordable Care Act-compliant. 'I have no intention of charging a premium to the state employees,' Koppelman said. During committee discussion, however, some lawmakers did indicate they'd like to see state employees contribute to health insurance. Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, said that changing the plan is taking a big risk without assurance employees will prefer it. He said it's not clear that the plan will save money. People often take jobs with the state government for the benefits and stability, he argued. Warrey said Senate Bill 2160 would also give employees more free benefits, such as preventive health care like colonoscopy screening and mammograms. It would allow co-pays to count toward out-of-pocket maximums. Rep. Jim Kasper, R-Fargo, said that if employees take advantage of preventive care services the cost of the state plan will go down over time. They'll be able to address health conditions before they become more severe and more costly, he reasoned. According to Kasper, who said he has worked in employee benefits for 25 years, the private sector moved to Affordable Care-Act compliant plans long ago because they offer more flexibility. 'Grandfathered plans in my opinion are like dinosaurs,' Kasper said. If the state saves money by changing the plan, it could reallocate those extra funds into raising wages for employees, said Koppelman. This could be positive for recruitment and retention, he said. 'Young individuals are looking for more dollars in the check,' Koppelman said. Some state agencies have come out in opposition to the plan, Rep. Austen Schauer, R-West Fargo, noted on the floor. The Office of Management and Budget, for example, has said that employees consider the current health plan an important benefit and worry about the new plan impacting North Dakota's ability to attract state workers. The agency has also expressed concerns about how the state will fund the plan. Schauer said the state should seek more thorough data about the proposal, including what an Affordable Care Act-compliant plan would cost and how many employees support the change. The bill represents a 'huge decision that needs to be studied with input from all stakeholders,' Schauer said. The bill is expected to go to the Senate next for a concurrence vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
