Cutting Alaska’s health care costs by sending employees out of state for cheaper treatment might work to trim budgets, but even so it may not be in the state’s best interest, say some who would have to deal with the proposals.
“I can understand why they want to control costs, but this is an approach that’s going to have an economic impact on our providers and our doctors, especially in Juneau where you’ve got so many state employees,” said Jim Duncan, business manager of the Alaska State Employees Association.
Parnell administration officials proposed taking steps to hold down medical costs for state employees and retirees that may include incentives to go to the Lower 48 for cheaper care and increasing use of preferred provider networks.
The state pays about $600 million a year for employee and retiree health care, according to Commissioner Becky Hultberg of the Department of Administration. That budget item has been growing at double-digit rates in recent years, increases Hultberg called “unsustainable.”
She’s proposed that the state should look at incentives for state employees to go south for medical procedures, saying it could provide big savings even after the cost of plane tickets, hotels, and other expenses.
It could also prompt Alaska providers to lower costs that are well above national averages, state officials said. That could save the state money even when Alaskans don’t take advantage of the incentives to get cheaper care outside Alaska.
The proposal was particularly worrying to some, including Karen Perdue, CEO of the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association.
She said she’d talked about it “conceptually” with Hultberg, but didn’t know the specifics of what the state might propose.
Losing state business could cause serious problems for the state’s rural hospitals, she said.
“They keep their doors open by taking the paying customers and having that volume because they also need to serve the non-paying customers, she said.
“If the customer mix become more of the people who really don’t have the choice to leave town, and the paying customers are leaving, that is a very dangerous situation for a rural hospital,” she said.
That could hurt both hospitals and communities, she said.
“Most of the hospitals in our association are community hospitals like Bartlett, or they are managed by some group and the facility is owned by the community or a non profit,” she said.
Perdue said hospital costs in Alaska are about 30-35 percent higher than in the Pacific Northwest. That’s about how much more food and other items cost in Alaska as well, she said.
“Physician fees are different, they are sometimes quite a bit higher, specialties in particular,” she said. “I think that’s where a lot of Commissioner Hultberg’s attention has been attracted.”
Alaska already pays for some employees to go south when care isn’t available locally, or and when they choose to if it is cheaper.
Dennis Geary, regional manager with the Alaska Public Employee Association, said Alaska’s costs can sometimes be dramatically higher.
“When a colonoscopy costs $6,000 in Juneau and $1,200 in Seattle and I’m paying the bills, why wouldn’t I want to pay the lesser amount,” he said.
Many of the unions representing public employees in Alaska have health trusts where the union makes the coverage decision with a set amount provided by the employer. Geary sits on a health care trust for the Juneau School district.
The unions understand the challenge facing the state, the leaders said.
What Hultberg is proposing is not new, Geary said.
“She’s new to the job, and when she came in she started saying ‘how do we find ways to reduce our cost if we can, but not reduce benefit or services,’” he said.
“It’s not a new concept, but she’s saying it out loud when previous commissioners didn’t,” he said.
Geary said he’d prefer public employees in Alaska be able to stay in Alaska for their health care if the costs were comparable.
“If it’s a wash, its much better to be able to stay here,” he said.
Duncan said he was worried that what starts out optional such as Hultberg has proposed might wind up with employees being penalized if they didn’t go down south for cheaper care.
“To require folks to be away from home, to be away from family members, that can be pretty traumatic,” Duncan said.
While his members are now in a union health care trust, after they retire the state will again provide their health care. Travel can be even harder for older people, he said.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250, or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.





Comments (37)
Add comment@eowyn
I would love to have your coverage. I haven't had a $1000 deductible since 1984? I think. We are self-employed 48 and 51 years old. We pay $534 a month, no dental, no vision and a $7500 deductible per person. We were paying over $1000 a month for family of 4, $10,000 deductible for the family until our son (pre-existing condition) went to college and got the cheap college group insurance. We have private pay, no group insurance. I had my first mammogram paid for last year thanks to Obamacare. Paid out of pocket for new glasses and checkup this year after going 6 years without. Paid out of pocket for dental the last couple years at about $2000. Private pay quit covering pregnancy in 1988. You will not be covered if you are overweight (unless they consider "fat" a pre-existing condition now). Prescriptions are paid out of pocket. I don't think most people in government jobs or union jobs realize what you pay as a self-employed person. I would love to be able to buy into a group insurance but it is not available. You should not have to work for the government or anyone else to have access to affordable health insurance.
@Latitude58
I think it might have something to do with All the big bungholes around Juneau.....
It seems that Alaska is one
It seems that Alaska is one of the few places where the cost of health care is being addressed at the state level. I health reform news for the OnlineNavigator network and have been impressed by the efforts. See a chronology of the state's reform actions and results at http://freedombenefits.net/health-insurance-exchange/Alaska-affordable-h.... Unfortunately similar attempts to control costs in other places (like Massachusetts) have not yet been successful.
It's true
A colonoscopy could easily cost $6K. I had one done in Anchorage three years ago and it was over $5K then. By the time you pay for the everything, including the initial doctor visit. It was performed at the hospital which charged a hefty fee, then the doctor, anesthesiologist, and lab work.
My doctor recommended I have one after I turned 50, but my state insurance wouldn't pay for preventive screenings. I think it was a change in Alaska law that required insurance companies to start covering colonoscopies.
how about hiring in state
how about hiring in state instead of out of state residents? there is at least one washington state resident working on a state dot job in Haines now, possibly more. could that be a problem and would requiring DOT, and other State agencies, to hire locally help anything? besides the local economies?
Thanks to Public Employees Local 71 for that.
Cost controls are built into ADA
You are wrong because the ACA allows the insurance companies to keep only 20% of the premium dollar for profit, the other 80% must go to covered health care expenses. They have been raking in billions in profit for the past decade, read Deadly Spin for an eye opener. Now, if they overcharge on their premiums they must refund the excess premium. In large markets, it is 15%. Checks for last year will be in the mail in August. Guaranteed Safeway doesn't do that.
Please take time to become informed about the new law. It is good for all of us. Go to www.heathcare.gov
MaggieMae
I agree with you completely. My brother owns a small business and he can't afford insurance. The only way to establish groups for small business is by creating the health care exchanges, which Parnell just shoved back to the Feds.That is one of the reasons that I am a huge supporter of the ACA. Everyone should have affordable health care.