Finance director wants to reject legislative health insurance

Alabama Finance Director Jim Main wants the State Employees Insurance Board to reject the State Senate’s application for state health insurance. Currently, senators can buy a state program, but must pay the full amount for coverage, around $800 a month. A Senate resolution passed on the last day of the legislative session seeks to reduce their premium to the same rate that all other state employees pay, which is nothing for single coverage and around $180 a month for family coverage.

I like the idea, as I’ve said before, but once again the legislature is trying to do this on an unrecorded voice vote with no public debate. I would prefer to see some actual legislation, with some actual debate and gubernatorial inclusion.

In a letter^[pdf] written to the insurance board, Main asks them to reject the application, which they apparently have statutory authority to do at their discretion, according to Ala Code 36-29-14(b) . Main lists 5 reasons in the letter for rejecting the application. This is a summary of Main’s thoughts, not mine:

1. The resolution is an attempt to change statute with a Senate resolution, which can’t happen. The law seems to indicate that Senators are simply not eligible for coverage.
2. Providing the benefit would effectively increase the compensation of the senators, which can [theoretically] only be accomplished by constitutional amendment. Tell that to every single state legislature, all of whom receive legislative “pay” in addition to their constitutional salary.
3. The Senate is not listed as an entity that is eligible for the compensation in the law. Even though there is a blanket term for “state agency,” this seems to be referring to administrative, or executive branch, agencies.
4. The law states than an application for coverage must be submitted by an ‘employer,’ but the Senate (who approved the resolution) are not their own employers and are not even employees.
5. There is no funding source for the state’s burden of the premium.

I can’t say I disagree with any of that, except number 2. Try telling any of the senators who voted for the 62% pay increase that their compensation “benefits” have to be passed by constitutional amendment.