Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

MinnPost logo 2014 Summer Member Drive

Readers like you make MinnPost possible
Become a sustaining member today

A bit of irony in Pawlenty’s op-ed piece on health reform?

AFSCME Council 5, the largest union representing state-government employees, is finding some irony in Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s opinion piece on health-care reform in Sunday’s Washington Post.

"In Minnesota," the governor writes, "our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket."

Pawlenty, a Republican who many anticipate will run for president in 2012, notes the cost savings and flat premiums. "The payoff is straightforward: For two of the past five years, we've had zero percent premium increases in the state employee insurance plan."

The liberal-leaning union says it agrees with Pawlenty that the State Employee Group Insurance Plan, which is run by the Minnesota Management and Budget agency, should be a model for national reform.

Still, a longtime health-benefits negotiator for AFSCME and a union spokeswoman note that Minnesota’s plan is essentially something that many Republicans oppose in national reform legislation — a public option run by government.

"This is a case where the largest public employer in the state and all the unions came together and designed something that works for workers and families because they couldn’t buy it in the private sector," said Peter Benner, a former executive director of AFSCME who negotiated health benefits under governors dating to Rudy Perpich. "I’m glad he (the governor) holds the state employee health plan up as a model, but I think it’s a model of what a public option can do -- not what a private-sector model can do."

The plan, like a number of those offered by large employers, is self-insured, which means the state is "responsible for paying its own claims and administrative expenses," according to a 2005-2006 report [pdf] on the program. The program contracts with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, HealthPartners and PreferredOne, which are "responsible for paying claims so the state does not have access to the protected health information of its employees or their dependents. The carriers also provide medical networks, pharmacy benefits, and disease management services."

About 120,000 state workers and their dependents are covered under the plan, "not a big enough group to bend the curve these days" in long-term "cost-effective, affordable care," said Benner, now a consultant who would like to see other public employees like teachers and local government workers added to the plan. "If they really look at the SEGIP group as a model, I would think they’d want to find as many ways possible to get as many people in the product so that we bend the curve."

In the op-ed piece, Pawlenty says "Democrats have been busy tinkering with a Washington takeover of the health-care system," when they should look at how states like Minnesota have handled the escalating costs of health care.

"Gov. Pawlenty’s op-ed tries to scare us with words like 'Washington takeover' and 'socialized medicine'," says AFSCME spokeswoman Jennifer Munt. "Yet, that’s exactly what he’s suggesting."

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Comments (6)

So, it sounds like Pawlenty is still talking about a collectivist approach to health care. Sounds great. I guess it's not 'socialism' at the state level.

Pooling a group of employees together to buy group health care plans, and making them pay more for the more costly offerings? How is that like Medicare (aka public option)? Maybe I'm missing something.

The governor's opinions on health care reform would be more interesting if he bothered to read the papers once in a while. He depicts the measure as "focusing on only one leg -- access -- of a three-legged stool that also includes cost and quality." Do ya think? The White House has been all over replacing fee-for -service since the beginning on this thing.

The rhetorical tone of Gov. Pawlenty's op-ed piece was far more radical than anything Democrats are proposing in practice. The governor is right that health care should be concerned with quality and cost, as well as access. The problem is that his party opposes both of those things in practice.

I think there is a missing piece here which is crucial. While the Guv doesn't say it in so many eloquent words, certain phrases such as "don't take the power away from the states," and his laundry list of reforms the Fed can do without actually taking over health care lead me to believe he wants the Fed to let the states take care of it themselves, or just let them continue what they are already doing. Which is not very radical at all, and completely on par with his Republic views.

And there were sure a lot of unhappy Minnesotans commenting on the the original post in the Washington Post..