Louisiana Senate Bill SR171

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/2/17
• Passed: 6/3/17

Caption

Requests the legislative auditor to study the feasibility and possible savings created if the state were to purchase a traditional, fully insured health insurance plan for state employees.

Impact

If implemented, SR171 could significantly impact the fiscal management of health care costs associated with state employees. The resolution highlights concerns around financial responsibility, advocating for a model that may shield taxpayers from unforeseen increases in healthcare liabilities related to catastrophic illnesses. The study requested by the resolution could pave the way for a more predictable budgeting process regarding health expenditures for state employees, ultimately affecting the overall financial sustainability of the state's health insurance system.

Summary

Senate Resolution 171 (SR171) urges the legislative auditor to study the feasibility and potential cost savings that might arise if the state of Louisiana were to transition from its current self-insured health plan for state employees to a traditional fully insured private health insurance plan. The self-insured plan is presently managed by a third-party administrator, with the financial risk of employee health claims resting on the taxpayers. In contrast, a fully insured plan would allow taxpayers to pay premiums to an insurance company that would then assume the risk for medical claims, thereby potentially reducing costs incurred by the state over time.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SR171 appears to be cautiously optimistic. Proponents support the idea of exploring alternative health insurance models, believing that moving to a traditional insurance plan could yield savings and more stable costs for the state and its taxpayers. However, there could also be concerns regarding how such changes would affect the benefits available to state employees, as well as the quality of care, should the transition occur.

Contention

Potential points of contention stem from stakeholders who may be concerned about the implications of switching from a self-insured model, which offers flexibility in benefits design, to a fully insured plan that might limit coverage options. Additionally, the resolution does not address specific methodologies for how the savings study would be conducted, which could lead to further debates about the effectiveness and thoroughness of the analysis, as well as the metrics used to assess whether a transition is actually beneficial.