CalPERS Costs Going Up

From today's SF Chronicle article by Ryan Kim. This will affect the City of Burlingame's budget next year.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System on Wednesday sidestepped an unpopular proposal for co-payment fee increases and cost-cutting restructuring moves and approved an average 11.6 percent increase in premiums for members of health maintenance organizations.

CalPERS has been under pressure to rein in premiums, which have grown steadily due to higher equipment, staffing and drug costs as well as an increase in obese and elderly patients. Labor groups, however, had strongly opposed co-payment increases, fearing it would shift too much of the health care burden to workers.

By forgoing co-payment increases, CalPERS will lose out on an estimated $55 million in savings for 2007. The premium rate increase will be borne largely by employers, which pay 80 percent of premiums, and taxpayers.

The CalPERS system, which oversees benefits for 1.2 million state and local government workers, is the third-largest insurer in the country and is often viewed as a bellwether for the health care industry.

- Written by admin

Comments

Why should Burlingame residents care?

[Matilda]

Because the increased cost will come from the City's budget. An 11.6 increase in health care costs would be roughly an additional $400,000.00 per year for active employees and I can't even estimate the number of retired. Let's just say it's going to be very expensive.

[Rich Grogan]

This is an unfunded liability that has an almost expediential expense to the tax payers.
Public retirement and medical are expensive.

[mary]

Thanks Matilda. That is a lot of crossing guards, extended hours for the library, contributions to community charities and money for rec center programs.

It would be nice if CalPERS spent more time getting a better return on the money they invest (our money) and less time worrying about whether the companies they invest in do business in South Africa, offer domestic partner benefits or follow "green" environmental principles.

Some day taxpayers are going to realize that letting do-gooders manage their money is costing them money.

My neighbor is employed in Burlingame public works. I was told that in the next fiscal year they will be recieving a "retirement enhancement",what ever that means.

[Matilda]

It could mean many things from more life insurance to increased retirement benefits, but most likely it's the later which means 2.7@55.

I have no idea what 2.7@55 means.
In relationship to "any " retirement benefit.
However, I am aware that past and current council members receive the same benifits for life. And spouses! That is one hell of a benifit. If that is a fact, I think Burlingame would have a whole lot of candidates in the next election.
Do you know what those benefits are?

[Matilda]

All permanent employees and council members who are vested in PERS when they retire from Burlingame, (vested is 5-years cumulative from any PERS agency), receive full medical benefits for life for the retiree and their eligible family members.

This year the cheapest medical benefit for employee family is Kaiser HMO at $1012.39 per month and projected to increase 11.6% next year.

Retirement benefits are calculated on a formula. Non-safety now contracts for 2%@55 benefit, meaning with 30-years of service at age 55 (2% x 30) the employee would receive 60% last highest year's income. With 2.7%@55 that same employee would receive 81%. The formula increases with additional age/years. The non-safety employees contribute to their own retirement from their salary.

Safety members contract for 3%@50. (50-yrs old with 30-years of service = 90%). The city pays the safety employee's retirement contribution.

Council members would have to be re-elected be vested... that is, unless they have service time with another PERS agency.